



























° N °* 



y ' 1 *'•% * * .o". 

V ^" -*> ✓ ° & * 


<\V -/> 

\V t/» 

• ‘bt. * ^ar^r -» 

/-'^ \ * «& O' -A 

i <r 'o * * * A _ , 

°° cp- s''^L\% / / 

- £ ^ ‘ «Pt*C? * 0o a -•It'. * 

* - > % xyWy' o o v^v J- b % , 

v, ■:,;;/ ♦> '" K ° ^ \._ 4 ■" v '\ • Z %*j 

<& ° ^ s* « $ /'ij/k ° 'bn ,^ X « 


V /■ 

\> s' 






< 



o ’</* ,\\ 

cP,\\ 

(J> , / is* % 

- ~ ,**£&? S ^\> 

•'' -» N ^ ^ .o^ »' 1 * * T- 

IV • v , i V-< C 



' » 8 * A S X C ” • " * ■*© 

• * A* S o C~ b^/>pp^^ V 

• 'bo' .'/Hfe - ^A ^ .' 
h Tj. Vr^i x°°x. : 



* x o o 

© \ sC, 


<b" 

0 H . ’*1/ %U ' V V . . ' * 0 I. ’’ #> 

.s>- ***»,■ *c\ v > 0 V + ' * °s ^ 

* ^ c'V ^ 


,v> % \ Vi 

,v ^ ;< 


, 


X/ / 44 o ' ^0 


\V <P 

^ ,y \ » ^ 

'^> y ^J>W c . ^ v 

o <9 ^ s' ,r' x 

0 N c '« 6 s ^ # \ i b # 

o 0 v s 'i 'p 

; *o o' ; 

; -s v. ’’ 81 ^'* \ 0 c 2 < 

S' - ^ ^ ^ ^ _ + 

\ V* V ^ r\ ' O A- a' o » 

■* ^ ■<-^ • c - ^ v ^ 



0 U *■ 




?. 


V> ^ £ 

z. 


-S* 

V. 





o * x *' /\ 





A x 


; -oo^ ^ ^ « 

^ ♦ 

^ ^ x * © /• X fi 

^ -CJ Co. <■ 


N . ^ V ' e o 


■>* V *. 

O 0 X 


9 I A 


^ >A ^ » 

: x°^ 

* bp y ' y o° y y p y ^ 

^ ® N °' Y * 0 ^ *> 11 * \^ s , - 

— 1 \ <■ T- V* S ’ ' i 

\ - -> ^ * -JV V V WW ^ 



Cl 


0 k 


•4 *7* & 



^ *Wa v o 








i^; : 7 > 7 a v = ^ 


.<?■ t- % t 























w & ^ 

0 , v * A „ r O, 

c“ * c <• 



A ' * JL*■* i 


\ 0o x. 


'- A "Tj, y 

<S 

'l"‘\ c- v> s"’ 1 * > 

r X A. ♦ '*' w 

° A- A 
? ■■ A % * 

X * 1 * ■ * 



v i « 





* <=> 


1 'P 

A > 


A V< 'Y. : 

* O* * 

C>" > v 

\ * ’7 ^ t t ^ \0 

\\ 0 N C * * S *S . 1 n ^ 

JA C 0 * ^ O. ,-0' «* V * <^- 

• » * -c^ ^ O 0 v V ^Ao 1 'P 

y V *» ^Pk [ll/Z/yy* 'P* 

o 0 X ,- -* A 






V^ ^ -A7 o ^ °i<. >- C-'V' >? r A *7^ * 

>’ ’ '*% y 0 N ° N o*° % ' 81 ' \>'\^ *+''> * 5 N 0 # + > 

* - T- « Si * <*> . V ^ A > 

* C. - A jA'^F /F) <?’, A> * * ->y A * 

Y- «? . MM/A ° ^ ^ « Jrit,' i> <£ 



A 'V 


y </> 


■* a 



* ...^^ • 



</ 

» \V </> 



aV -</> 

, -Wtf, &w - -to V,” ’<c- ,.> “1/ >^\J V * 'V ,-y. * 

A \ ^-' t» '' -A ;£* y 

"• ‘ /.-r *"4 ';:,V’ ‘;/A- .X'• 

fu. v 6 = -■ •>-„ ' jyfeSs ^ -fj. v? = «?^yai - ->- 0 


\ 0o x. 



•» o O' 

c . «• 


yH A, 

* ^y//tm v \v- y wv^ n 

X A' V ^ 0 N 0 5 ' 0 

A'v\ N A* 0 ’-* 

^ X o “ A V ^ 

« fl V A- X, % 

\ A * ^ 3* . •* ^ ry ' 



* « *, s s ’ _ l , 8 <“ y 0 « X. ^ V A . . ^ V / 6 * s S a0 




-fc V 

/, — A ,A X 

« -y, ° * * ’ <A ' 0 N 0 ^ ^ * * * 

* ^ * A * ^ 

> ^ ^ f v X . x 

% - X K = A 


0 >\ A ’ B k "<? 

0 ^ 

+ ->y 


0 <i 


« O0 

•{I « »■ 


F?, ^ * 

X 0o x. 

> ' ^ 

cfx y ^VJ-' * <J t, ^ v Oi 

** H0 \& *"<>*■% \> V A S "^ ^ 


o5 ^ 

♦ .\ x o, 

V * 0 s o ? <0' 




•>* " 

' % c* 

<S « 


<-• > ''■ '%• A' 


* aV <p ' 

* <V X 

^ y 

’ ri » y * .A 



"/ > 



SJ VJ w ^ 

vA A 


■^' T 


C, - 

X V 

vV t/>. 


\ y o> 

.A ^ 


>', o n ‘ /, °' t 'o.\""' .A" •> 1 * 







/ Vo' , ’*~ •»* *, 

o' ' ; % X o5s x c 0 N c ♦ 9 

c * *./#??*% * ^ ° 

X K - - * ^ ,> '- 


* x x. 

X- ' ^^ s , * J 

0/ % \> ' * *f 

<* 'p ^*W ^ a 

^ P'" v. ^ * <>>■ 

</'_ .vV o >=3i tlFv. " *•£* c.^ 





X 0 ^. 

* ^0 



o 

A 


\ v- 

C> l- *W / ~ y* 

SL ^ t ft' u . \ * \V 

v O^ ^ * 0 y x ^ s 

*» y «$LA* V ^ v, 
y ^ " A '■■ ' = X* x^ N ’ 

•X ^ » AXWAUV/'A <P <\> 




A y'A 

v^‘ X ° 

^ o\* - 

<■ 7 0 „ y ^ A O, ** r^ , S <0 y* 7 0 « 

c p- V« ’ A ‘, '% # »‘_A C ♦,% * * r. 0 ^ V*" ’ ' 

~ v ^ ->y 4. jfA. Y,^ y 





sYC 'A 









































'the 

\ “ 

\ 

DEBATE 


IN THE 


SOTJTH CAHOLXHA LEGISLATURE, 


in 


DECEMBER, 1830, 

v ’ 

ON THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES OF BOTH HOUSES 


IN FAVOR OF 


CONVENTION, &c. 


/ 


COZitJMBlil, 

PRINTED BY S. J. m‘MORRIS, 

1831. 

> > 0 . > > - • > 

, . , . »‘ ) 

« * > />» > * ' > > * 

* 0 ) » ) ) > 1 *> J 

) I > > ) ) l> ) > 1 V > 


O ) ’> > * > > ) 

> 1 •> « 

* •* -» o % » 

) ■ 1 )*" > 

> < J ) > ) 






Ui * n o Select Committee, of the Senate, made by Mr. SEABUOOR. <,* 

the 3d day of December, 1830. 

A BILL CONCERNING CONVENTION. 

YV hereas, in the opinion of this Legislature, the Congress of the United 
States, on divers occasions, and on several important subjects, hath assum- 
e.d, and exercised powers not granted in.the Constitution of the United 
States, either directly or by any rational implication, by enacting laws 
both in relation to appropriations for roads and canals, and in relation to 
imposts, and duties on foreign importations, for the purpose of encouraging 
and protecting domestic or American manufactures : which laws, thc^Le- 
gislature ot South Carolina hath more than once, pronounced to be unau¬ 
thorised by the Constitution of the United States, and a direct infringe¬ 
ment ol those rights of self-government, which legitimately belong to the 
said Legislature, and which it alone should exercise ; and hath also, on 
more occasions than one, attempted the exercise of other powers, equally 
dangerous to the well being of the said state, 

_ *And whereas, It is the opinion of this Legislature, that in such exigen¬ 
cies, the people of the state peaceably assembled in Convention, are°thc 
sole constitutional judge, as well of the nature and extent of the evil, as 
of the mode and measure of redress*; therefore. 

Be it enacted by the Honor able the Senate, and House of Representatives, 
now met and sitting in General Assembly, and by the authority of the same, 
(two thirds of both branches of the ivhole lie present at ion, concurring in 
favor thereof) That a Convention of the People of the State ofSouth Ca¬ 
rolina, by their Delegates, to be elected as hereinafter provided,be called; 
and that the said Convention shall assemble, at Columbia; on the 

lie it, further enacted, That the Governor, within , shall 

cause writs ot election to be issued, authorising and requiring the mana¬ 
gers ot elections, in the several districts and parishes, after giving public 
notice, as in cases of other elections, to open and hold a poll on the 
and the day following, in next, for the election of delegates to the. 

said Convention ; and all persons who are qualified, and entitled by the 
constitution and laws of this state to wotc for members of the Legislature, 
shall be qualified anil entitled to vote for said delegates; and the said 
election for delegates to the Convention, shall be held at the same places, 
and be conducted in all respects, in the same manner, and according to 
the same regulations as are prescribed concerning the general elections for 
members ot the Legislature. 

Be it further enacted, That any person shall be eligible to be elected, 
and to sit in the said convention, as a delegate, who may possess the quali¬ 
fications necessary to a seat in the House of Representatives of the state 


idgislature, provided that the holding of an office of honor, profit, or trust, 
under or from the government ot the state or South Carolina, shall not bo 
a disqualification for a seat in the said convention ; and that any person 
who, at the time of the election, shall hold an office of profit or emolument, 
under or from the government of the United States, shall not be eligible, 
except Senators and Representatives in Congress, who shall be eligible; 
and provided, also, that ministers of the Gospel shall be likewise eligible. 

Jlnd be it further enacted, That each district and parish throughout the 
state, shall be entitled to elect and send to the convention as many dele¬ 
gates as it is now entitled, by the constitution and laws of the state, to send 
Senators and Representatives to the state legislature. 

Jlnd be it further enacted , That the said convention, when assembled, 
shall take into consideration such acts and laws of the government ot the 
United States as this legislature hath, from time to time, declared and pro¬ 
nounced to be unauthorised by the constitution of the United States ; and 
against which it hath protested as an infringement of rights, which, by the 
said constitution, are reserved to the states, and can be legitimately ex¬ 
ercised by them only : and such other acts and laws of the general gov¬ 
ernment as the said convention may decree unconstitutional in their en¬ 
actment, and dangerous in their tendency : and that the said convention 
shall adopt such mode and measure of redress for the evilsarising from the 
unconstitutional legislation of Congress, as it may deem necessary and 


eserve 


proper to protect the rights of the state of South Carolina ; to pr 
the federal constitution, and to cement the union of the states. 

Jlnd be it further enacted , That the delegates elected to the said con¬ 
vention, before they take their seats, in addition to the oath required to be 
taken by members of the legislature, shall take the following oath:—“ I 
swear (or affirm) that I will not, in the discharge of my duty as a member 
of this convention, take into consideration any other matters, or engage' 
in the discussion of any other propositions than such as relate to the un¬ 
constitutional legislation of the Congress of the United States : and that E 
will not concur in the adoption of any other measures than such as may 
be intended to provide a remedy for the evils arising therefrom.” 


-— w** -aw— 


The Biil concerning Convention being under consideration, Mr. SEA- 
BROOK rose and addressed the Committee of the Whole, Mr. UOn in 
the Chair, as follows : 

Mr. Chairman — I am not aware that I ever attempted to address you 
with feelings like those which now influence me. The momentous charac¬ 
ter of the controversy between this state and the federal government, the 
consequences likely to grow out of it,added to the high responsibility devolv¬ 
ing upon us all, are well calculated to fill the mind with deen and serious 
impressions 


° J 


Lhere was a time, and it has but recently passed, when liberty wit a its 
manifold blessings, was practically enjoyed by every citizen of these United 
States. Then , the promotion of sectional interests, or the indulgence in 
sectional prejudices, had not been engrafted on the stock ol Congressional 
improvidence. r lhen, the principles involved in our revolutionary strug¬ 
gle, constituted the polar star oflegislative action. Every class successfully 
pursued its vocation. Joy and activity resounded through the land, and 
the star spangled banner adorned every sea and every port. How altered 
is our condition ! How changed the political scene on which the eye of 
patriotism could fondly rest! The sweet and general calm winch once 
prevailed, has been broken and interrupted. The kind and brotherly feel¬ 
ings which at one time animated every bosom, have been transformed into 
individual distrust, jealousy, and dislike. Professions and pursuits are 
arrayed in opposition—nay, members of the same calling withhold from 
each other the right hand of fellowship. State is in opposition to State, 
and frightful disorder stalks exultingly abroad. Whence this alarming 
ebullition of the public mind ? The answer is not heard. The sanctuary 
of the constitution has been invaded and the will ot our lathers sacrile¬ 
giously filched ; and the deed has been committed too, by the very senti¬ 
nels to whom a generous and a confiding people had entrusted the precious 
relic. Power, unchecked and irresponsible, now reigns, and the beacon 
Light of ? 98 is about to be extinguished, perhaps forever. Whilst the 
standard of political fanaticism points to the division ol the spoils ol pro¬ 
perty, the banner of false philanthropy is raised on high as il inviting to 
acts of horror and of darkness. The immediate cause then ol the. 
general commotion is, the violation of the federal compact. This is the 
box of Pandora from which have issued the appalling ills under which the 
south now labours. The constitution of the United States is our safeguard 
—it is the shield of our protection—-it is, in fine, the sacred bequest oi the 
patriots of the revolution. Deface it—rob it of a single line, and it were 
well had the Union never existed. On what condition did South Carolina 
subscribe to the confederacy P Whatever it was, her honor, which has 
never been sullied, if not her interest, commands her to abide by it. In 
the ratification of South Carolina, dated the 23d of May, 1788, this em¬ 
phatic language is used : “ This Convention doth also declare, that no 
section or paragraph of the said constitution, warrants a construction that 
the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them, 
and vested in the general government of the Union/ 5 Is it within the 
compass of language to convey a more definite meaning, or to express a 
less ambiguous phrase ? At‘that time, South Carolina was not only a 
wealthy and highly prosperous state, but the character of the population, 
as now, was peculiar. Satisfied that her pecuniary ability, the happiness 
of her people, or the security of their property, could not be augmented by 
an association with the several states; whatever were the eminent advan¬ 
tages she had reason to anticipate from the Union, it became her 
imperative duty to exact every security which parchment could af¬ 
ford. In this feeling other states participated. The object ol each 
was to prevent, it possible, the assumption oi undelegated tiusts, by tne 
central authority. They wisely judged that, as Congress was to be au¬ 
thorised, not only to promote the general welfare, blit to make all laws 
which should he necessary and proper for carrying into execution their 


fiiutiiciatetl powers, that body, incited bv avarice or aiubitition, miohr, 
transcend its constitutional limits. To the condition prescribed by South 
Carolina, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, the first Congress, at its 
iirst session, assented; and in the caption to the amendments to the con 
stitution, proposed for the ratification of the states, it was declared that, 
“The Conventions of a number of the states having at the time of their 
adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent miscon¬ 
struction or abuse ot its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive 
clauses should be added ; and as extending the ground of public confidence 
m the government, will best insure the benificent ends of its institution.” 
Kesolved, among otlier amendments, “That the powers not delegated to 
the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are 
reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” "This is the compact 
winca kutledge,and Butler, and the Pinckneys subscribed in behalf of the 
ir.en fi ee, sovereign and independentstate of South Carolina. Here is the 
bond which has been so insultingly mutilated by the grasping rapacity of 
an interested majority, I will now ask you, Mr. Chairman, nay, I will 
propound the interrogatory even to him who lives and moves in the very 
atmosphere ot consolidation, to point out a line or word in that compact to 
which Sputh Carolina has not religiously adhered. In times of difficulty 
and peril, she has never stopped to inquire whether her co-partners need- 
, he. assistance; whether her resources could legally be demanded, or 
whether the arm of government was pressing heavily upon her. No; I 
•ihank God, that on her altars sacrifices for the good of our common country 
have never ceased to be ottered freely, if not with avidity. With the de ¬ 
voted jeeUng of Rome, in the days of her pride and glory, she has ever 
viewed an injury to one state, as an injury to the whole national community 
hmiiil now pourt ray the character of our adversary? Shall I tell you, 
Mr. Chairman* of our wrongs and of a freeman’s duty? No. With the 
history of our wrongs every tyro in politics is conversant. The poisonous 
grasp or usurpation all have felt. In relation to myself, however, I am 
constrained to declare, that il the colonies were justifiable in resisting the 
parliamentary aggressions of Great Britain, the states are now called on bv 
the sacred charter which connects them with the Union, as well as by the 
imperishable dictates of self-preservation, to arrest the career of usurpation 
which has disgraced the American Congress, and converted it into a loath¬ 
some despotism. Yv hat then are the federal edicts of which South Caro¬ 
lina has so long and so justly complained? The two most prominent are 
urn prohibitory policy and the system of internal improvement. On these 
subjects of fruitful controversy, I shall say but little. Every parish in the 
b^ate, not once, but repeatedly, lias declared its opinion of their unconsti¬ 
tutionality and oppressiveness. The Legislature has on three occasions 
and with an unanimity rarely equalled on questions ofhUh political im¬ 
port, responded to the voice of the people. It would therefore be an un¬ 
profitable consumption of time, and an unwarrantable trespass on the 
paaence of the Committee, to meet a conceded point. Moreover it is of 
but little moment to inquire to what extent South Carolina is taxed by the 
tank whether the average of duties on imports be 45 per cent, or whether 
oy the system ot internal improvement, she be a sufferer to the amount of 
810,000,000, or si,000,000 only. This is not the true question at issue. 
Inr complaints are based not so much on the unjust exercise of pow- 


er, us mi the arbitrary assumption of power, I'he ground on which this 
state now proudly stands is,not that millions are annually wrested from 
her, and then distributed among those whose interest it is to receive her 
tribute, but it is that her sovereignty is invaded. She denies the right to 
Congress to assail the sanctuary oi private interest, to force labor and 
capital Irom their natural channels, or to do any other act not particularly 
stated in the compact. The contest therefore, in which South Carolina is 
now engaged, is not a struggle for dollars and cents, but the nobler con¬ 
test for the preservation of the constitution itself. It is, in short, -princple 
for which she combats. On the result depends state independence, and 
with it life, liberty, and property. In this view, a more momentous ques¬ 
tion was never agitated by a deliberative body. Let us approach it, sir, 
with a conscious rectitude of our intentions. Let us remember, that in 
the presence of Him, from whom no secrets are hid, we have sworn to pro¬ 
tect and defend the constitution of this State and that of the United States. 

The first attempt at assumption by Great Britain, in relation to her 
American colonics, was the famous stamp act of 1765 . How was the ar¬ 
bitrary statute received ? By “a peremptory denial, that the inhabitants 
ot the colonies were bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance 
whatever, designed to impose any tax whatever upon them, other than the 
laws or ordinances of their general assemblies.” To enforce this declara¬ 
tion, emanating from, and for a while sustained alone by Virginia, the most 
determined measures were resorted to. “If,” said the patriots of that day, 
‘‘Parliament have aright to levy the stamp duties, they may, by the same 
authority, lay on us imposts, excises, and other taxes, without end, till their 
rapacity is satisfied, or our abilities are exhausted. We cannot, at future 
elections, displace these men who so lavishly grant away our property.— 
Their seats and their power are independent of us, and will rest with 
their generosity, where to stop, in transferring the expenses of government 
from their own to our shoulders.” Here is a faithful expose of the situa¬ 
tion of the southern states at this time. They cannot eject from office the 
men who have been instrumental in creating the grievance of which we 
complain. “Their seats and their power are independent of us.” Shall 
we appeal to public opinion ? That has been done, and public opinion is 
against us. Shall we, by argument, by remonstrance, or by protest, en¬ 
deavor to satisfy our opponents of the necessity of a change of policy?— 
Rach expedient has been tried, and each has signally failed. Our ances¬ 
tors, be it remembered, were the subjects of a consolidated government.— 
The colonies were integral parts of the British empire; yet, a nominal tax 
created the revolution. How stands our relation to the federal govern¬ 
ment, and that of South Carolina to the same power? We, the citizens 
of this state, owe no substantive, inherent allegiance to the government of 
the United States. Our allegiance is consequent on the membership of 
South Carolina to the confederacy, created by compact, and to which in¬ 
dependent sovereignties alone are parties. Need I say, that the world has 
sanctioned the justness of our colonial veto—and shall the principles for 
which the southern states are now contending, be deemed less worthy of a 
timely and efficient support? Having thus endeavored, briefly, to show 
the true character of our controversy with the general government, several 
questions of grave import present themselves. Has South Carolina 
a constitutional right to arrest any law of Congress which she might con 


[ 8 J 

aider as a violation of the compact? Ought she, in reference to the tariff, 
now to attempt the exercise of that right without the certainty of the co¬ 
operation of the southern states? What is “the mode and measure of re¬ 
dress, 55 to which it would be expedient to resort ? Avoiding for the present 
the discussion of the point embraced in the first interrogatory, as unneces¬ 
sary to a correct decision on the bill under consideration, I proceed to an 
examination of the position, that South Carolina, alone and unaided, can¬ 
not successfully stay the encroachments of the federal government. A 
preliminary observation, however, it is necessary I should offer. There 
are many politicians avowedly in favor of sustaining, at every peril, the 
sovereignty of the states, but whose principles, when pushed to their le¬ 
gitimate extent, are in direct repugnance to their declaration. I am, says 
one, for South Carolina, right or wrong; but mark the qualification, it 
would be madness in her to resist alone, Prudence advises the seeking of 
aid, and when obtained, forward to move, and leave the consequences to 
God. The inference deducible from this proposition is, that our aim should 
be to intimidate the authorities at Washington, by an imposing exhibition 
of physical power; but, in the event of disappointment on this head, to be 
able to oppose force to force. On whom then should rest the charge of 
disunion, civil war, and blood ? Let the tongue proclaim it at the solemn 
bar of conscience. In our contest for principle, we need no other arms 
than the arms of invincible truth and justice. Now, South Carolina either 
can, or cannot constitutionally exercise her veto upon an unwarrantable 
congressional mandate. If she can, the federal government cannot legi¬ 
timately interpose its authority. If she cannot, will the concurrence of 
die whole south make that right, which was wrong in reference to South 
Carolina alone ? Can numbers change the character of a principle?— 
Numbers may affect the expediency of a measure, but can never alter a 
fundamental truth. In 1828, the Legislature of this state adopted the 
following resolution, viz:—“That the measures to be pursued consequent 
on the perseverance in this system, (the tariff) are purely questions of 
expediency and not of allegiance ; and that for the purpose of ascertain in 
the opinion and inviting the co-operation of other states, a copy of these 
and the resolutions heretofore adopted by this Legislature, be transmitted 
to the Governors of the several states, with a request that they be laid 
before the several Legislatures, to determine on such ulterior measures as 
diey may think the occasion demands.' 5 Can words be more explicit?—* 
!s it desired that we should again urge upon our neighbors the necessity 
of a combined effort ? Do they not understand their rights ? Are thev 
willing to bow submissively at the bidding of consolidation? Shall we 
send missionaries to preach political homilies to them ? No, sir! South 
Carolina must assume a nobler and a more dignified stand. She must 
write her cause on the broad concave of heaven, and with the constitution 

for her guide, and the spirit of V6 to aid her, let her fearlessly do her 
duty. J 

To the invitation of South Carolina, the states of Virginia, Georgia, 
Alabama,and Mississippi, have responded. They concur, as to the un- 
oonstitutionality and gross injustice of the prohibitory policy. They dis- 
tmctlyaffirm, in the language of the Virginia report, that “the proceedings 
h c Legislature of South Carolina announce and sustain their opinions; 

.• as, vs mch ' cst on ‘ ruth and reason ; which thev can discern oo enu-s? 



t. 9 J ' 

10 relinquish ; but which they are ready to defend and sustain, as involv¬ 
ing the most essential interests of their commonwealths.”* These? 
states, be it remembered, sir, are allied to us by the strong and imper¬ 
ishable ties ot interest, policy, and feeling; as well as by the endear¬ 
ing cement of not only laboring in the same vocation, but owning 
the same peculiar property. Hence, in any contingency involving the 
saiety of South Carolina, there could be no neutrality on the part of the 
plantation states. Whence arise the evils which so unceasingly assail us 
and them ? Is there any natural affinity between the northern and south¬ 
ern sections of this vast empire ? A moral and political relation exists be- 
tween them. The federal compact created it, and that only, administered 
in its purity, can preserve it. There is no disguising the truth, that the 
interests of South-Carolina and Georgia, are not the interests of Connec¬ 
ticut and Rhode-Island. It is the policy of the south, as well as the dic¬ 
tate of an elevated ph ilosophy, that the industry of our citizens should be 
like the air which they breathe, free and unshackled. On the contrary, 
the principles of Say, Smith and Ricardo, are discarded as political here¬ 
sies, whenever a loom is erected, or a manufactory rears its imposing front.- 
With France, Great Britain and Germany, the plantation states profitably 
exchange the productions of their labor. The manufactures of one, are 
repaid by the raw materials of the other. The tariff portion of our national 
community, on the other hand, raises nothing of which those European 
powers are in want. The agricultural productions of botli parties are, in. 
general, the same. Each seeks the same markets, and each pursues the 
same line of industry. Every consideration, therefore, that can address 
itself to the well-being and perpetuity of our domestic institutions, 
prompts the whole south to exist as an unit—as one great sovereignty, 
indivisable and unchangeable. 

Permit me now, Mr. Chairmain, to reply briefly to the prominent ob¬ 
jections which are known to exist against any movement of South-Carolina 
at this time. And, first, it is said, that a change is gradually taking place 
in the public mind favorable to the cause we advocate. The following 
powerful agents have been assiduously engaged for at least two years in 
practically demonstrating the baneful tendency of the “American system, 
yet, to us, hope is as distant as though it had never existed. First, the 
extensive and distressing failures of the manufacturers. Secondly, the 
loss incurred by the farmers in the middle states, who were deluded into 
a belief, that the tariff act of 1828, would open new and endless 
avenues to wealth. Thirdly, the serious injury indicted on com¬ 
merce and navigation. Fourthly, but of a different and less effective 
character, one or two ably edited periodicals, and a few well conducted 
newspapers. Lastly, the declaration and protests of five states, that the 
prohibitory policy is destructive to their labor and capital, and not war¬ 
ranted by the federal compact. The concentrated energies of these vari¬ 
ous agents operating directly or negatively in behalf of the free trade 
system, have, it would now seem, produced no other effect, than a more 
unyielding determination in the majority, to rivet their chains on the 
patient aiul unresisting slave-holder. If it be inquired, what causes have 
brought about this afflicting state of things P I answer, first, the constant. 


Note A in the Appendix. 





{ 10 I 

unremitted and zealous exertions of the press.* Secondly, when an im¬ 
petus is given to industry in any pursuit whereby a larger profit than usual 
is confidently to be anticipated, capital will seek that channel—specula¬ 
tions will commence, and that enviable virtue, prudence, will for a season 
be neglected. Hence the true cause of the failures in 1828. To profit 
immediately by the bounty which it was the design of the law of that year 
to dispense, business was done with unusual precipitancy; and at an ex¬ 
pense, too, which no calculations had reached. Men distinguished for 
caution and circumspection, invested their entire capital in buildings and 
machinery; and although ruin was ultimately their fate, yet others were 
thereby enabled advantageously to embark in the new enterprise. Estab¬ 
lishments that cost from 50 or 100,000 dollars, have recently been pur¬ 
chased at much less than one half of their original value. They are now 
owned by individuals of limited fortunes, and I speak advisedly, when I 
assert, that there is not one under the operation of a solid capital, that 
does not realize from 10 to 25 per cent. The current opinion, therefore, 
that the manufacturers are engaged in an unprofitable businesses a fallacy. 
It is opposed to existing facts, to recent history, and to common sense. 
The tariff states never were in a more prosperous condition; and that 
their prosperity is mainly to be ascribed to the tribute which they annually 
receive from the southern yeoman, needs no metaphysical reasoning to 
substantiate. Thirdly, the opinion of the president of the United States, 
openly expressed on more than one occasion, of the constitutionality of the 
tariff laws. I shall not speak of the influence of the federal executive. 
It is well known. It has been felt on every occasion where its exercise 
was attempted. In truth, it is inseperable from the organic structure of 
the confederacy. The tariff’states, with, I believe, two exceptions, are 
now clamorous for his re-election ; and that his sentiments on the prohibi¬ 
tory policy is the true ground of their favoritism, recent events abundant¬ 
ly testify. ^ Fourthly, successfully to prosecute their pseudo-philanthropic 
schemes, the followers of Wilberforce in this country have lately added 
their moral and numerical power to the tariff’and internal improvement 
parties. The avowed design of the^refiormers is emancipation. At their 
head stands the Chief Justice of the United, States, aided by the talents 
and prudence of Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia, and other late dis¬ 
tinguished converts to the Clay system of exclusion. Fifthly, the apathv 
of the southern states, and the failure of South-Carolina in 1828, to dis“- 
charge the solemn obligation she owed to herself as a sovereign and high 
spirited community. If at the onset of our difficulties, the example of 
Virginia in 1765, or of Virginia and Kentucky in 1798 and ’99, had been 
followed, the political horizon would soon have exhibited its usual calm¬ 
ness and serenity. But, unfortunately, perhaps, for the cause of liberty, 
the sentinel on the watch-tower slept, and the monster consolidation plant¬ 
ed his foot on the threshold of our sacred political edifice. One encroach¬ 
ment followed another in such rapid succession that, ere the mind could 
bring its powers to bear on the topics of inquiry, the deed was consumma¬ 
ted; and the usurper, firmly seated on the throne, now smiles triumphantly 
at the pigmy doings of its supposed imbecile opponents. In 1828, the 
eyes of the union were instinctively turned towards us. We had spoken 

* Every newspaper, north of Washington Citv, save nine, is hostile to the free trade 
policy. 






111 J 

much and oiten ; and our people were then in a state of unparalleled ex¬ 
citement. A strong and magnanimous effort was made; but divided in 
her councils, South-Carolina could only hope tor better and more auspi¬ 
cious times. I then thought the question of resistance was forever yielded, 
and so thought our adversaries. At this very moment they erect their 
security on our weakness; and it remains for us to determine whether 
they have built their house on a rock or on a sandy foundation. Lastly, 
from physical, as w r ell as moral causes, it is succeptible of proof, that the 
restrictive system never will be voluntarily abandoned. Comparatively, 
the soil of the northern section of the confederacy is poor and incapable 
of producing any very valuable commodities. From this consideration, 
added to the density of their population, the industry of the people is won¬ 
derfully exerted, and capital is perpetually seeking new channels for 
investment. Of the many millions lent to the general government from 
its first organization by citizens of the United States, perhaps three-fourths 
have been advanced by the tariff states: and for the most obvious reason— 
the certainty of a larger return than could be realized from agriculture or 
commerce. The wealth of these communities is relative, not positive. All 
of them, including the great state of New-York, are measurably dependent 
on southern industry for their prosperity. Of the whole amount of na¬ 
tional exports, their contributions are about one-third. A few of themdo 
not export enough of domestic products to defray the expenses ol their 
civil list.* In fine, it may almost be said, that the anomalous spectacle is 
exhibited of a government based on the purest principles ever devised by 
the wisdom and foresight of political reformers, supporting a large portion 
of its population by annual drafts on the public treasury; or in other 
words, that a grand pauper system exists, differing in this only from the 
legitimate rule, that the disbursements are allowed not to needy individu¬ 
als, but to sovereign and chivalrous commonwealths. I’he lederal gov¬ 
ernment, influenced, doubtless, by prudential considerations, have ever 
looked with tenderness on that section of the union. The laws concerning 
navigation, commerce, the fisheries, manufactures, internal improvements, 
&c. &c. put this matter beyond dispute. Even the embargo and non- 
intercourse acts, and finally the war owed their origin to the necessity ol 
protecting the fruits of eastern labor. From what source was^ drawn the 
funds to accomplish these important and patriotic objects? The answer 
in part may be found in the statistical fact, that South-Carolina alone ex¬ 
ports more of native commodities than the whole of Nevv-England ; yet, 
strange as it may appear, Massachusetts imports more than South-Caro¬ 
lina. ° To make amends for the sterility of their soil, and an unfavorable 
geographical location, it would appear, as if those states are determined 
so to extend the doctrine of implication as to enable their party in Con¬ 
gress to rule steadily and triumphantly. They well know that every 
exercise of constructive power, under their plastic management, relatively 
augments their political strength. An essential item in their new fangled 
system of philosophy is to diminish the power of the south; either posi¬ 
tively, by such means as the tariff and colonization society; or, negatively, 
by refusing their assent to any measure or project calculated to enlarge 
the sphere of our authority. For this reason, and not from its unconstitu- 


'* There are but seventeen states that export domestic products. 






r ^ ] 

tionality, they resisted the purchase of Louisiana. Kora like motive they 
are now opposed to the acquisition of Texas. Against their will, except 

■f a o a An o r» a n r 1 1 f! /•» n ioc? ah txrn c> n <1 f f a/! i n f a 4 \ \ r\ 1 i in aii 



principles_...---.... j _ 

statesmen, they could not subscribe. The scheme of distributing the surplus 
revenue among the members of the confederacy, meets their decided appro¬ 
bation. They encourage and sustain the establishment of colonization 
and abolition societies. Why all this P Let avarice and ambition answer. 
Although the states are deeply interested in the preservation of the union, 
yet all are not equally so. From the confederacy arise the rapidly in¬ 
creasing wealth and general prosperity of the tariff states. To augment 
and perpetuate both, depends as much on the assumption of undelegated 
powers by Congress, as on the existence of the federal compact. Let the 
doctrine of implication, as practically enforced by the general government 
be annulled, and the elysian fields on which they have been wont to riot, 
will, as if by the wand of an enchantress, be converted into barren heaths. 
The hand ot covetousness may still continue to grasp instinctively the 
fruits of southern industry, but where substance was, “ airy nothing” will 
fee found. The reasons here assigned, why the tariff states favor the aug¬ 
mentation ofpower by Congress will ever exercise an operative agenev ; 
so long as the admonitions of nature are heeded. 

We are told, however, Mr. Chairman, to pause in our endeavors to 
bring: back the government to its original design—to wait awhile and all 
will be well. How long shall we wait?—One, two, or twenty years? 1 
have never heard an answer to this question. I he idea ot waiting must 
be based on the belief of a change in public sentiment favorable to thecause 
ot state sovereignty. This, I have endeavored to shew, is a miserable 
fallacy. During the late war high duties on imports w f ere imposed to 
raise a revenue commensurate with the exigencies of the country. In the 
attainment of this end, manufacturies were incidentally established and 
supported. On the restoration of peace, it was conceded that the duties 
should be diminished ; and the majority, influenced by the most exalted 
motives, determined that it should be done gradually. In this feeling 
South-Carolina participated. The act was worthy of her magnanimity’ 
but fatal, peniaps, to her peace. When the period arrived, prescribed by 
the act ot 1816, for a further modification of the tariff, grant us another 
boon-wait a little longer—constituted an appeal from the interests of the 
manufacturer to the sympathy of the nation. In 1820, from the vast 
amount invested in manufacturing establishments, to be traced of course 
to the great profits of that branch of industry ; from the accession to the 
numerical force of the tarift party ; and from other causes already adver¬ 
ted to, the manufacturers demanded as a right, what before they had asked 
as a kindness. Could this have happened, if the south had not been swerved 
from its line of duty by the syren song of wait awhile. In 1824, $40,000 000 
were added to the capital devoted to the furtherance of the “ American 
system. 1 hen, instead of companies, or even sections of large commu¬ 
nities, embarking in the new enterprise, so rich was the prize which the 
legislation of Congress had created, that entire states, in utter dereliction 
ot their most sacred immunities, suddenly presented themselves as cham¬ 
pions. A kind of delirium seized the public mind, and the desolating bill 


oi that vein* passed the national councils by,a majority ot three votes. 
The excitement among the tariffites steadily increased, until in the con ¬ 
summation of its wildness and extravagance, it gave birth to that child ot 
many fathers, the bill of abominations as it lias been happily styled. A 
majority of sixteen proclaimed the triumph ot our opponents. Since that 
memorable epoch, the indignation of the southern states has been strong- 
arid decided. There exists not a Carolinian who denies the existence of 
our grievances, and the imperitive necessity,of redressing them ; still that 
appalling sound—that infantile cry which pierces and harrows the very soul 
as if in mockery of our complaints, still lingers on the car with its timid 
and unconsoling accents. To conclude this afflictive summary, it is now 
notorious, that on every question of principle there is an unyielding ma¬ 
jority in Congress against the free trade party ol at least thirty votes. 

Again: the president’s veto on the Maysville road bill, will, eventually, 
it is gravely urged, restore the harmony of the Union. I freely admit the 
important benefits that must flow from this decisive and independent act 
of the federal executive. For a while he has checked the passion for 
appropriating the national funds for sectional purposes. That during 
his administration too, an economical disbursement ot the public treasure 
may be relied on, is true; but that it will be competent for him to limit 
the*annual appropriations to the express wants of the country is not sus¬ 
ceptible of proof. If, in the language of Mr. Clay, the efforts of Congress 
should be directed by one act to collect the public revenue, and by another 
to distribute it, will it be a difficult matter to suggest an hundred subjects 
inviting the aid of the national treasury ? At the late session ot Congress 
the sutn appropriated for internal improvements was inconsiderable ; yet, 
the whole revenue of the government was pledged for some object or 
other. There are, therefore, strong reasons for believing, that although the 
president’s timely interposition has arrested for a season one exercise ol 
lawless power; still, the nation will not be a gainer in a pecuniary view. 
But apart from this consideration. If the recommendation accompanying 
General Jackson’s veto message be adopted by Congress, it needs not the 
spirit of prophecy to predict the infliction of a heavier curse on the union 
than the one which now assails it. That this scheme is likely to form a 
part of the Congressional code, the public voice gives fearful forebodings. 
What will be its practical operation? The concentration of all power in 
the hands of the federal government. Annually participating in the 
largess of Conn-res, will soon beget a feeling adverse, if not ruinous, to the 
independenceand sovereignty of the elementary portions of this confed¬ 
eracy. The states, as a few of them now do, will refuse to tax their own 
citizens; and if the amount they may respectively receive be insufficient 
for their purposes, they may and will combine to enlarge their income. 

In what mode ? By the imposition of higher duties on imported articles. 
It is in fine, the most effectual devise which the inventive faculty ot man 
can offer, to perpetuate the tariff policy. Shall I speak of its cotrupting 
moral influence ? Of first mulcting the nonest yeoman to bribe him after¬ 
wards by returning a pittance of his own money ? Or, if scattenng wit.) 
a lavish prodigality the gold of one state among the avaricious paupers of 
another’ Look too at its obvious injustice and incompatibility with the 
bond of union. South Carolina, that exports more of native products than 
the states of Hartford Convention memory, will receive nine parts, and 


L 14 J 

tlmse states fifty-four parts. Ohio, that exported in 1828 not one cent's 
value of domestic commodities will receive fourteen parts, and Louisiana 
whose exports in that year equalled the sum of glO, 163,342, only three 
parts. The seven southern states, whose united wealth, as estimated by 
their average annual shipments of the produce of their soil, is two thirds of 
that of the Union, will receive fifty-eight parts, and the other members of 
this mighty league, to the number of seventeen, will have a right to de¬ 
mand one hundred and fifty-five parts. If we dare ask by what authority 
this splendid scheme of robbery is to be accomplished, the cold and re¬ 
pulsive answer is returned, that the power is incidental to an authorized 
trust; or in other words, that Congress has a right to promote the general 
welfare. I solemnly declare, that as ruinous as are the systems of the 
tariff and internal improvement, I would rather that South Carolina should 
submit to their operation, than to this accursed project, which, if put into 
practice, will sap the very foundation on which the superstructure of our 
government is erected. 

Another objection to immediate action on the part of this state, results 
from the belief founded on what transpired at the last session of Con¬ 
gress, that the prohibitory policy may be successfully attacked in detail. 
? Tis true, that by that policy, the duties on certain articles were consider¬ 
ably reduced. It is also probable that by perseverance in that line of 
management the tax on other articles may be diminished; but is there the 
slightest ground on which to build a hope, that the tariff will be at all 
modified in relation to those arti les for which the southern states exchange 
their staple commodities P The duties on molasses, salt and teas affected 
seriously the eastern states. It was apart of the American system which 
bore heavily upon them. By these modifications, their situation has been 
meliorated. It has hence lessened their hostility to the system itself.— 
Over the south, on the contrary, the sword of Damocles still hangs by a 
hair. So far too from the modifications alluded to bringing us friends, 
they have increased the number of our opponents abroad, and opera¬ 
ted as a sedative on a few of our friends at home. The duties of which 
we chiefly complain are those on cotton and woollen goods and hardware; 
as for these, we exchange our cotton, rice and tobacco. Repeal the tax 
on every article, save on those just enumerated, and the tariff* will still 
constitute a power, of sufficient force to sweep the land with the besom of 
destruction. On the other hand, let the protection on those commodities be 
withdrawn, and the system will then be more properly American; for 
comparatively, it will press with equal force on every part of the union: 
and this consideration alone by destroying the inequality on which the 
policy is supported, will of itself, without any extraordinary effort on the 
part of its assailants, consign it to oblivion. It must be apparent, that if 
the Tariff had borne equally heavy on the states, it would long since have 
been repealed. It would be repugnant to every principle of reason and 
common sense to infertile continuance of any legislative measure, which, 
in its operation, was universally injurious. It is therefore the uncontested 
fact, that it does contribute to augment the prosperity of the larger portion 
of the confederacy, that the restrictive system is sustained, in despite of 
the protest and solemn warnings of the southern community. To keep 
South Carolina in a state of delusion, attempts may be made at the ensu¬ 
ing session of Congress, to mitigate the severity of the act of 1828. For 


t I 5 


as long as the tax on a single article can be reduced, prudence, it is said, 
should admonish us to forbear. Let this mode of attack on the out-posts 
be carried on for a few years, and if the citadel be not then reached, I 
venture to prophesy, that interest will force South Carolina into the ranks 
of Mr. Clay. It would be easy at this time for Congress to allow a draw¬ 
back on cotton bagging, and the next year, to repeal the duties on nutmegs 
and other spices. In the mean time, the capital of our citizens from sheer 
necessity, would be diverted from the cotton culture to the establishment 
of looms and workshops. Thus, while the sirength of our opponents 
would in no wise be diminished, that of this state would be materially 
impaired. 

Again: the extinguishment of the public debt is much relied on as a 
panacea for our wrongs. Should no unforseen contingency occur, it is 
believed, that event will take place in four years: Then, no cogent reason 
will exist for a perseverence in the high duty system. The avowed object 
of the acts of 1824 and ’28 was, the encouragement of domestic industry, 
without the slightest reference to the payment of the national debt. On 
the contrary the most decided advocates of the tariff policy are the most 
lukewarm in relation to this interesting subject. I verily beiieve, when 
the period arrives at which the federal government shall have discharged 
its pecuniary obligations, that the people will demand a reduction of taxes: 
but the character of those taxes, as well as the extent to which they might 
be diminished, will depend on the majority—on that majority whose 
deeds are visible in the desolation around us; anil whose interest it will 
be to expunge from the statute book only those parts, which, in their en¬ 
forcement, are known to be injurious to themselves, or unnecessary lor 
their wants. 

At the late session of Congress, Mr. Benton submitted a project by 
which the nation was to be relieved of SI2,000,000. It bore an imposing 
aspect, and was well calculated to mislead the judgment of the unskilfu l 
politician. To us its enactment would have been inexcusable mockery. 
The Missouri statesman knew, that for the south essentially to be benefittell, 
the duties on those articles for which we exchange our staple commodities, 
must be greatly reduced. To effect this, however, he was aware, would 
be to plant a poignard in the bosom ol the tariff itself; for, without those 
specific duties it could not endure for a day. It is not improbable that 
on some future occasion, a bill in substance like that of Mr. Benton’s may 
become the law of the land; and, although as consumers we should par¬ 
ticipate in the benefits arising therefrom; yet, in relation to the true ten¬ 
dency of the entire American system our grievances would be unredress- 
ed. The momentous interrogatory now presents itself, if the effects of 
the prohibitory policy be as pernicious as I have represented them—if an 
interested and corrupt faction have practically nullified the sacred charac¬ 
ter of our liberties, what course is it meet that South Carolina should 
pursue P As a preliminary step, let the whole subject of our unfortunate 
collision with the general government be referred to our citizens in 
convention. They created the constitution ol this state, and aided to 
establish that of the United States. The people of South Carolina, 
therefore, so far as they are concerned, are the proper judge to determine 
whether the federal compact has been violated or not. The 1st clause of 
the 11th article of our state constitution is in the following words, viz— 




1 16 J 

l< No convention Gallic people shall be called, unless by the concurrence 
ot two thirds of both branches of the whole representation.” It is apparent 
on the very face of this article, that the framers of the Constitution deemed 
it impolitic to consult the people, except on extraordinary occasions; and, 
as confirmatory of their will, that those occasions should be indicated by 
the most decided and unequivocal sense of the body politic. From this 
position results a peculiarly important inference, that whatever may be 
the decision of such a tribunal, it would emphatically be the voice of the 
state ; and, as such, would be respected at home and abroad. “ All power 
is originally vested in the people; and all free governments are founded 
on their authority, and are instituted for their peace, safety and happi¬ 
ness. ^ If, therefore, w r e, the deputed guardians of the “ peace, safety 
and happiness” of our constituents, believe that danger is at hand, and 
that it cannot be averted by legislative enactments; we would be traitors 
to our trust not instantly and openly to proclaim it. Are we afraid to 
trust our masters? If, in convention, they were to adopt the supposed 
hazardous measure of nullification, would it not be the act of a body, arm¬ 
ed with power by the highest human authority ? To whom would that 
body be amenable ? The sovereignty of a stranger? The mandate of a 
foreign triounalr No! despotism, in its wildest aberrations, would not 
\enture to hazard that assertion. Mr. Chairman, let gentlemen urge what 
piea they may——let them put the subject in every light human ingenuity 
can devise, it is j feav, in all its nakedness and deformity, which compels 
iticians so strenuously to resist the call of a convention. 

federal rela- 


In effect, they declare, that on the absorbing subject of our 
lions, the knowledge of the citizens of South Carolina is va^ 


ague and indefi¬ 


nite, and their judgments weak and unsound. Impelled by this considera¬ 
tion, and influenced too by the finest feelings of the human heart, they 
would prevent the contemplated elemental meeting of the people ; believ¬ 
ing} that they may cut their own throats. Thus,if these are our opinions, 
do we aim a blow at the foundation principle of the government. With 
but few exceptions, conventions have been held in every state in the union, 
not once, but lepeatedly. In no instance have they ever exhibited a 
revolutionary feeling, or a disposition to moot questions not embraced in the 
sphere of tlieir delegated trusts. 1'hey were designed to check the 
wanderings of power, to prevent the collision of variant interests, and to 
Keep tne political machine in steady and harmonious action. In fine they 
constitute the very essence of the conservative principle of our institu¬ 
tions. i hey ate therefore extraordinary but peaceful assemblages; and 
as must ever be the case, have been composed of the learning, patriotism! 
and vveight of personal character in our commonwealth. Hence the 
federal and state governments wisely provide for the call of conventions. 

I here are many forcible reasons why this constitutional provision of 
South Carolina should now be carried into effect. The opinion has 
obtained abroad, that this state cannot be goaded into further resistance * 
and that the excitement which prevails among her citizens is limited to a 
slender minority, f his readily accounts for the taunts, jeers and insults 
which have been so lavishly bestowed on our public men,as well asforthe 
contemptuous manner in which our remonstrances have been received ~ 


" article, of the Constitution of the state of South Carolina. 










| 17 ] 

Let however a convention meet, and other and more discreet feelings will 
soon be indulged. Conventions, our opponents are aware, were not de¬ 
signed for ordinary purposes; and should one assemble after the bloody 
scenes which have been depicted to our affrighted imaginations, they will 
then know and be able to appreciate the acuteness and universality of our 
political disease. Now, our complaints constitute the theme of merriment 
—our resolution for unceasing resistance, treated as the vaunting of 

madmen. And is there not reason for their faith? Have not a few of 

* 

our own presses grossly misrepresented the views of the dominant 
party in this state? Have they not deceived the people of the United 
States as regards the force and extent of the public sentiment of South 
Carolina on federal usurpations ? Are not letter writers at this time 
secretly engaged in the treacherous task of poisoning the mind of the 
president, in relation to our cause and its advocates? Although I would 
not assemble the people in their highest sovereign capacity solely to elicit 
a more faithful exponent of the public will, yet, that that result would 
ensue from a convention, is indisputable. Another consideration forcibly 
suggests itself. It has been generally conceded, though I do not myself 
admit the correctness of the position, that the Legislature has gone as far 
as it can constitutionally go. It has petitioned, remonstrated and protested 
against the existence and maintenance of the restrictive system; and 
further, it has solicited the co-operation of the anti-tariff states, with a 
view to such “ulterior measures” as the exigency of the crisis imperiously 
demands. Shall South Carolina now be silent? Shall she patiently await 
the decision of time, or by some unequivocal testimonial, shew the undi¬ 
vided and steadfast determination of a sovereign and high-minded people. 
A convention would be a forward movement—it would remove a serious 
impediment in the way of a practical exposition of our principles. 

All acknowledge the great insecurity of our property. The value of 
our estates no one knows. This results solely from the distracted state of 
the public mind. It is vitally important, therefore, if the welfare of South 
Carolina be consulted, that the matter at issue should be speedily adjusted. 
Hitherto, it is believed, the subject of our differences with the federal go¬ 
vernment, has been coram nonjudice. After our citizens in their primary 
assemblies shall have settled the question of constitutionality, then, our 
courts of justice would be competent to afford them ample and entire 
protection. Should, however, those tribunals be inadequate to the attain¬ 
ment of that end, it will be for the Legislature to determine on “the 
mode and measure of redress.” The expediency of this course, it is said, 
is admitted and would be conclusive, if gentlemen were satisfied, that 
the deliberations of a convention could be confined to certain specific, 
definite points. The novel question therefore arises. Is a convention 
illimitable? The government under which we live is, in many respects, 
essentially different from that of any political association ever in¬ 
stituted. It is emphatically a representative democracy; that is, the 
people do by delegation what, in a simple republic, they would do in person, 
Let it be remembered too that lawful government is an emanation of the 
fundamental law, by which the people restrain themselves from any direct 
agency in the administration of their own affairs. A convention there¬ 
fore is" no more the people than the Legislature. The latter is charged 
nith certain general duties to be fulfilled pursuant fo the original writ- 


J 


I IS J 

ten compact of the society by which it is expressly limited—the former i» 
an extraordinary meeting of the community by representation, to accom¬ 
plish a speciiic purpose. As the Legislature calls it into being, in obedi- 
once to a constitutional provision, it is obviously a creature of the consti¬ 
tution itself, and can in no sense be paramount to that instrument.— 
Again, suppose these high authorities to be in existence at the same time. 
Has the one, from its peculiar political attributes, the right to modify or 
destroy the privileges and immunities of the other? No! Because* the 
people at the establishment of the government invested the Legislature 
with the sole power of altering their constitutional charter* An 
attempt by any other tribunal to effect that object would be revolutionary; 
and when the fever of revolution pervades the body politic, the interposi¬ 
tion of a convention is not necessary to inflame it to madness. One 
pausli might secede, and if others obeyed the same impulse, the rei°*n of 
terror would succeed the administration of law. But such a disruption 
oi our political ties would betray the existence of feelings, in which God 
m his mercy hath not yet permitted us to indulge. A convention to form 
a constitution is obviously and necessarily illimitable; but the instant 
the transfer of sovereignty is consummated, it becomes, by its own act, a 
responsible tribunal, ft may change its will, but that must be done in the 
inode prescribed by the original compact. If, therefore, in relation to the 
immediate topic ol inquiry, the people do meet in their primary assemblies, 
they will meet under the constitution. May they not refuse to send 

flnmo te L +! Tr i Ue ‘ • f? 1 thej not retuse to be represented on this 
door. As the Legislature then are alone competent to originate a legit¬ 
imate convention, can they not specify the time of its meeting and the 
purpose for which it is caljed. Must they not go further, and designate 
the number and qualifications of the members ? These specifications are 
essential to the organization and efficiency of a convention; but are they 
not 1 estnehons ol a positive character ? Where then shall the restrictions 
end. 1 answer, precisely at the point where limitations would be unneces- 

peculiai du'ty e of theT^r C< T qUentI J r with its commission, is the 
peculiai duty ol the legislative department of the government. These 

views are confirmed by the historical fact, that every convention that has 

express HmUationst ‘it t‘t? "? Ca “ ed f< T a ! P , ecial ob j ect and undel ' 
xpiess limitations.! It is therefore an untenable position, so far as 

experience testifies, that the moment a convention is called “society is 

resolved into its original elements.” It is practically and theoretically 

false. 1 he convention and Legislature of Virginia were in session -it 

Other tn Th r he membe !’ s f one vvere > m many instances, members of the 
t/IT G( \ vernor » Jud ges, of whom one} was of the Supreme Court 
of the U. S., and several of the representatives to Congress held s-ntc in 
the former. At that time was the complex machinery of the H n * 
for a moment arrested or even deranged > When tho & ovein,1 ? ent 
assembled to ratify the federal constitution, did it occurt aTnol S 
3 r ' c ‘ f hat the . state governments were ipso facto dissolved'? ^Thit the 

human tribunal. If .this be tr ue, the federal constitution is not constitt- 

t See note 11, ihe“pp?mfe n '^Thfrf.hisdee"A^ffi >n ° f South C * ro,in! »- 









[ 19 '] 

itli such a construction, the article in that instru¬ 
ment, as well as the one in our state constitution, concerning convention, 
is a deceptive and dangerous provision, and should never be enforced, as 
a dissolution of the union would be inevitable. Moreover, the 5th article 
ot the constitution of the United States provides, “that no amendment 
(proposed by a convention) which may be made prior to the year 1808, 
shall in any'manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the 9th section 
of the first article ; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived 
of its equal suifrage in the senate.” These nrc positive restrictions on a 
federal convention. I am, therefore, Mr. Chairman, led to conclude, that 
the theory and practice of our institutions favor decidedly the position 1 
have advanced,—that a contrary belief would prevent the amending of the 
constitution of the United States, and hence crush forever the hope of 
any melioration of our condition. Suppose Congress were to submit the 
constitutionality of the tariff act of 1828 to a federal convention. Would 
South Carolina refuse to send delegates, and urge as a plea the illimitable 
powers of such an assembly. In that event, the most favorable opportu¬ 
nity which ardent patriotism could desire, to relieve our citizens from the 
bane of unjust legislation, would be lost; for fear a mightier evil, may be 
ript up from the womb of a diseased body, that no one has seen or knows 
to exist. 

But, sir, if all I have said be erroneous, there is still one guarantee 
against the improvident and suicidal deliberations of a convention, which 
the sanctity of parchment could never offer. I mean the intelligence of a 
high minded people, and their unbending devotion to the sacred cause of 
their country. Under the guardianship of these elevated sureties, the 
rights of every section of the state are as secure as the existence of the 
people themselves. 

I have thus, Mr. Chairman, discharged a painful but necessary duty. 
The sober dictates of my judgment, I have unfolded. The indignation of 
my feelings have not been concealed. The crisis, sir, is portentous. On 
the Legislature depends primarily the safety of South-Carolina. In then- 
hands is her honor—her character—her liberty. Pause, and I fear it will 
be the pause of death. I say, then, in the language of him whose breath 
has long been hushed by the mandate of death, “ catch the favorable mo¬ 
ment, seize it with avidity and firmness; for it may be lost never to be 
regained.” Is it not a truly humiliating spectacle to see the citizens of a 
sovereign state begging for their rights ?—humbly entreating their seif- 
constituted masters to be merciful in their exactions ? Good God ! Is it 
come to this! that the mere agent of the states, should dare to assume the 
imperious prerogative of not merely waiving over them the banner of its 
supremacy, but of laughing to scorn even the exercise of the right to speak 
of their liberties P Sir, the veriest menial on earth—the humblest thing 
that moves in the shape of man, can entreat his Lord to spare him the 
earnings of his industry. Yet, this poor privilege, enjoyed by the degrad¬ 
ed vassals of the most tyrannical governments, has been denied to the 
people of South-Carolina. At the last session of Congress, Mr. M‘Duffie, 
in obedience to the expressed wisli of the Legislature of this state, submit¬ 
ted a proposition, sanctioned by the decision of a standing committee of 
the house of representatives, which looked merely to a prospective modi¬ 
fication of the restrictive system. How was it met ? In a spirit of friend- 


ship and conciliation : No. Even the clemency oi' the British parliament 
on a similar occasion, was withheld. The gag law silenced all complaints. 
At a subsequent period, to effect his purpose, your representative was 
obliged to resort to an expedient, which shews experimentally the slender 
tenure by which our rights are held. Yes, it is indeed, true! to such a 
height have your wrongs been carried—so remorseless are your oppressors, 
that to be heard at all, on the subject of your grievances, the uprightness 
ot the statesman must bend to the wiles of the tactician. From the fede¬ 
ral Legislature then, do you still expect justice P Is this the source from 
which you hope todrawthe consolation of some future good. Dispel the 
illusion! Ihe vulture that preys on your vitals will never relax its 
grasp until its appetite is appeased, or there is nothing more on which it 
can feed. 

Unfortunate Carolina !—Unhappy and divided state ! Where, sir, are 
her enemies P Look to the west, and there you will see them—Go to the 
east, and there you will find them—Ask for them at the north, and thou¬ 
sands will respond, here, there, every where ! Can the sick mind always 
find relief at home P Is it universally true, that in our own domicils—at 
our own fire-sides, the heart can freely disclose its sorrows P No, sir ! it 
dare not. Ii it speak above the low whispers ef the solitary anchorite, it 
as suspected. 11 but a patriotic feeling escape it, treason and blood unfurl 
their dark and sombre standards. Among the foes of our state there is no 
contrariety or opinion. With them a concentrated movement necessarily 
results from congeniality of thought and of disposition. Would to Heaven 
this could be. said of the friends of Carolina: then would the palmetto 
send forth new shoots of gladness—then indeed would the sun of our 
prosperity again shine with meridian lustre. Mr. Chairman, every effort 
hitherto made in this state to maintain our constitutional rights, or to ex¬ 
pose the true principles ot the federal compact, has been branded with 
some opprobrious epithet. Suggest what measures you please, if there 
but a squinting towards a fixed determination to uphold them, your motives 
are impugned and your attestations derided. This exhibits a spirit unlike 
that which animated the bosoms of our fathers. In its every feature the im¬ 
press ot consolidation is visibly stamped. If the states cannot protect them¬ 
selves it they cannot for a season arrest the career of usurpation, I should 
be glad to learn what state rights mean. A right without the means to 
preserve it, is no right at all; and it is wanton mockery so to stvle it. At 
that dark and gloomy period when Virginia stood alone and received un¬ 
dismayed the assaults of the satellites of power, she was accused, as South 
Carolina now is, ol a design to subvert the union. Did experience justify 
the allegation ? Let her history-.—let the elevated rank she proudly occu¬ 
pies in the confederacy—rabove all, let the political principles she has 
invariably inculcated and sustained, bear to the world her answer. 

Mr. Chairman,the situation ol the country at this time is distressingly 
ominous. It cannot long continue so. On one side we behold a majority 
ol states bent on the prosecution of measures, which they deem essential 
to their prosperity. On the other, many states alarmed at the existence 
ol a power, with as much authority, but with infinitely less sympathy than 
ever swayed the bosom of any tyrant of antiquity. On the one side, we 
see poverty aiming at political aggrandizement—on the other, wealth 
without the ability to enjoy it. There, is ambition, incited by avarice- 


1 21 J ' ... 

here, ambition too, but it is Jj.be ambition to preserve, unimpaired, the 
fruits of honest industry. There, is self-interest, directed by false philan¬ 
thropy—here, a laudable jealousy, striving to check the wanderings of 
enthusiasm. With one, might constitutes right—with the other, the letter 
of the constitution is the standard of obedience. These elements are too 
dissimilar ever long to move in the same sphere. God grant, sir! that 
the hopes of oil radii cted people may be realized—that the prayers of the 
righteous for the safety of our beloved country, may not ascend to Heaven 
in vain. 


APPENDIX. 

Note A.—The following- is the conclusion of the report of the select Committee of 
the Legislature of Virginia on the resolutions of Georgia and South Carolina.—“Act¬ 
ing under the influence of these reflections, your committee have contemplated with 
the deepest interest the situation of the general assembly, and the duties which 
devolve upon that body. They cannot suppress their solemn conviction, that the 
principles of the constitution have been disregarded, and the just proportions of our 
political system disturbed and violated by the general government. The inviolable 
preservation of our political institutions is entrusted to the general assembly of Virgin¬ 
ia, in common with the Legislatures of the several states—and the sacred duty devolves 
upon them, of preserving these institutions unimpaired. Yet, ananxious care for 
the harmony of the states, and an earnest solicitude for the tranquility of the union, 
have determined your committee to recommend to the general assembly to make 
another solemn appeal to those with whom we unhappily differ; and that the feelings 
of Virginia may be again distinctly announced, they recommend the adoption of the 
following resolutions. 

1. Resolved , as the opinion ©f this committee. That the constitution pf the United 
-States, being a federative compact between sovereign states, in construing which n© 
common arbiter is known, each state has the right to construe the compact for itself. 

2. Resolved , That in giving such construction, in the opinion of this committee, 
each state should be guided, as Virginia has ever been, by a sense of forbearance 
and respect for the opinion of the other states, and by community of attachment to the 
union, so far as the same may be consistent with self preservation, and a determined 
purpose, to preserve the purity of our republican institutions. 

3. Resolved , That this general assembly, actuated by the desire of guarding the con¬ 
stitution from all violation, anxious to preserve and perpetuate the union, and to 
execute with fidelity the trust reposed in it by the people, as one of the high con¬ 
tracting parties, feels itself bound to declare its deliberate conviction, that the acts Oj 
C ongress, usually denominated the tariff laws, passed avowedly for the protection 
of domestic manufactures, are not authorised by the plain construction, true intent, 
and meaning of the constitution ; that they are impolitic and oppressive to a laigc 
portion of the people, and ought to be repealed.” The preamble and resolutions 
were adopted by very large majorities. 

PROTEST OF GEORGIA. 

“From a painful conviction that a manifestation of the public sentiment, in the 
most impressive form, is called for by the present agitated state of the southern section 
of the union, the general assembly of the state of Georgia have deemed it their duty 
to adopt the novel expedient of addressing, in tns name of the state, the senate ot 
the Congress of the United States. 

In her sovereign capacity, the state of Georgia protests against the act of tne laso 
session of Congress, entitled ‘ an Act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties 
on imports,’ as deceptive in its title, fraudulent' in its pretexts, oppressive in its 
exactions, partial and unjust in its operations, unconstitutional in its w r ell known 
objects, ruinous to commerce and agriculture, to secure a hateful monopoly to ft 
combination of importunate manufacturers. 





t 2 * 3 

Demanding the repeal of an act which has already disturbed the union, and en~ j 
dangered the public tranquility, weakened the*coniidence ol' whole states in the. 
federal government, and diminished the affection of large masses of the people to the 
union itself, and the abandonment ofthe degrading system which considers the peo¬ 
ple to be incapable of wisely directing their own enterprise: which sets up the 
servants of the people in Congress as the exclusive judges of what pursuits are most 
advantageous and suitable for those by whom they were elected, the state of Georgia 
expects that, in perpetual testimony thereof, the deliberate and solemn expression 
of her opinion will be carefully preserved among the archives of the senate, and in 
justification of her character to the present generation, and to posterity, if, unfortu¬ 
nately, Congress, disregarding the protest, and continuing to pervert powers granted 
for clearly defined and well understood purposes, effectuate objects never intended 
by the great parties by whom the constitution was framed, to be intrusted to the con¬ 
trolling guardianship of the federal government, should render necessary measures of 
a decisive character,, for the protection ofthe people ofthe state, and the vindication 
of the constitution ofthe United States.” 

PROTEST OF ALABAMA. 

Resolved , by the senate and house of representatives of the state of Alabama, in 
general assembly convened, That the tariff of 1828 is, in its operation, impolitic and 
unjust, producing the most unhappy effects on the interests ofthe great body of our 
citizens, by its exclusive bearings on them ; prostrating agriculture, commerce and 
navigation, while it cherishes and elevates manufactures; and which is an exercise 
on the part ofthe general government of a power not delegated by the constitution 
under which we live, and too well calculated to disturb the harmony of the union. 

Resolved , That all duties imposed by Congress on imports, not for revenue, but 
to control the industry of the country, are contrary to the spirit of the constitution. 

Resolved, That when the general government transcends the powers delegated to 
it by the constitution, the legitimate mode of opposition, becoming the dignity of a 
sovereign state is, by respectful remonstrance, until argument and entreaty are 
exhausted; and then open and unqualified resistance, should be the last and despe¬ 
rate alternative between submission on the one hand, and the liberty of the people on 
the other. 

Resolved, That our senators in Congress be instructed, in the name of the state of 
Alabama, to record on the journals of that body a solemn protest against the tariff act 
of 1828, as unconstitutional, unjust, unequal, and oppressive in its operation.” The 
above resolutions were prefaced bv an explanatory report. 

RESOLUTIONS OF LOUISIANA. 

Resolved, by. ike senate and house o f representatives of Louisiana, That the general 
assembly of this state do not concur in the views and sentiments expressed by the 
resolutions ofthe Legislature of the state of Mississippi, relative to the tariff of 1828 ; 
and that the Legislature of this state does not perceive any unconstitutionality in 
adopting such measures. 

Resolved, That we highly approve ofthe resolutions of Vermont, by which they 
have declared the law of 1828, on the tariff, to be constitutional, expedient and harm¬ 
less. 

The first of the above resolutions shew, that the opinion of Mississippi is in accord¬ 
ance with that of South-Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Alabama. 

Although South-Carolina since 1824 has been greatly excited by the establishment 
of the tariff policy, yet it is no less true, that the various resolutions adopted by her, 
are at least as mild and dignified, as those passed bv any of the southern states." The 
following is the conclusion of the protest of South-Carolina adopted in 1828. This, 
with the subjoined resolutions, is the strongest expression of her sentiments upon the 
restrictive system in the archives of the state. “ Deeply impressed with these consider 
ations, the representatives of the good people of this commonwealth, anxiously desir¬ 
ing to live in peace with their fellow-citizens, and to do all that in them lies" to pre¬ 
serve and perpetuate the union ofthe states, and the liberties of which it is the surest 
pledge—but feeling it to be their bounden duty to expose and to resist all encroach¬ 
ments upon the true spirit of the constitution, lest an apparent acquiescence in the 
system of protecting duties should be drawn into precedent, do, in the name ofthe 
commonwealth of South-Carolina, claim to enter on the journals of the senate their 
protest against it, as unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust.” 


[ ^ ] 


,. „ , 7 rnl , . RESOLUTIONS FOR 1828. 

'Resolved, i hat the opinion of this Legislature on the subject of tiie assumed right 

Congress, to regulate duties on imports, for the purpose of encouraging domestic 
industry, as hereto!ore expressed in the various resolutions adopted in the years 1825 

fofl^r^ 1 ^ and aftert . hef ! l ^ ther aggression by the passage of the tariff 
act of 1828, tins Legislature is restrained from the assertion of the sovereign rights of 
the state by the hope that the magnanimity and justice of the good people "of the 

ration W1 ^ *?'ndonment.of a system, partial in its nature, unjust in its ope¬ 
ration, and not within the powers delegated to Congress.” J * 

", the m t asurc ? to be pursued consequent Sn the perseverance in this system, 
are pu.ely questions of expediency and not of allegiance , and that for the purpose of 
ascei tammg the opinion and inviting the co-operation of other states, a copy of these, 
and the resolutions heretofore adopted by this Legislature, be transmitted to the 
Governors of the several states, with a request that they be laid before the several 
demands 1 ” ^ l ° determine on Such ultenor measures as they may think the occasion 

NOTE iJ. 

lhe committee to whom his excellency the Governor’s message of the 9th 
instant, accompanied with the proceedings of the federal convention, was referred— 

Report, t hat having given it all the consideration which the importance of the 
subject required, are of opinion, that the house should adopt the following resolu¬ 
Resolved, That the proceedings of the federal convention be submitted to a con¬ 
vention of the people or tins state, for their full and free investigation and decision. 

Resolved , i hat it be recommended to such of the inhabitants of this state as are 
entitled to vote for members in the general assembly, to meet on Thursday and Fri¬ 
day the twenty-first and twenty-second days of February next, in their respective 
parishes and districts, at the several places appointed for holding the last elections for 
members of the general assembly, to choose as many persons as they have members 
m the senate and house of representatives, to serve in the state convention, for the 
purpose of taking into consideration the proposed plan of government for the United 
states; and that the said elections shall be conducted agreeably to the mode, and 

assembfy b ^ WUh ^ IUleS ^ re & ulations °f elections for members of the general 

Resolved, That the delegates to be elected to serve in the state convention shall 
have been citizens of the state at the time of the ratification of the definitive treaty of 
peace between the United States of America and Great Britain, and were eligible to a 
seat m the house of representatives. & 

Resolved , That the Legislature do give immediate notice, by advertisements, to the 
people, in their several parishes and districts, of the time, place, and purpose of the 
elections aforesaid, and do transmit printed copies of these resolutions to the persons 
who have been appointed to conduct the said elections. 

Resolved , That the persons so elected to serve in the said convention do assemble 
on Monday, the third day of March next, at the state house, in the city of Charleston 
and may adjourn from day to day, until a majority shall be assembled, when thev shall 
take into consideration the aforesaid constitution ; and if approved of by them, or a 
majority of them, finally to ratify the same in behalf of this state, and make report 
tnereot to the United States in Congress assembled. 

Resolved, That the delegates who shall be elected to serve in the state convention, 
shall have the same allowance for their attendance as shall be given to the members 
of the present general assembly. 

, Tit a i~o! is ? Xtl M?L d from * he j° urnals of the senate of South-Carolina, of Janua- 
' V < b • 88. It will be perceived, that the convention was restricted as to the sub¬ 
ject—«the time, place, and purpose of the elections”—the qualifications and pay of 
the members—and as to the number necessary to ratify the constitution. Thev were, 
moreover, specially instructed to “adjourn from day to dav, until a majority should 
assemble, and to “ make a report to the United States in Congress assembled.” 

Could that, primary assemblage of the people have annulled the constitution of the 
state and, if “ society was resolved into its original elements,” on the meeting of the 
convention, whence arise the powers now exercised by the various departments of 
the government t They were not restored by the convention of 1788. The people 
of South-Carolina are therefore in a state of civil society, and evervact of the Led si a 
ure is a palpable usurpation. ' " 






X 


L ** ] 


. 1 . !,. MUSTEK’S SPEECH. 


Mr. Chairmax —Being favorable to the passing of the biil on jour table* 
but differing in my views on the nature and probable result of a convention 
of tiie people of this state, I feel it my duty to trespass on the time and 


indulgence of the committee. 

I agree cheerfully with the preamble of the bill, and the remarks of the 
honorable member from St. John’s, upon the subject of the usurpations of 
the general government. 

M e all are disposed to admit that the general government has gone 
out ofher legitimate sphere of action, threatening, yea, doing violence to 
the rights of the state and the liberty of its citizens. The internal im¬ 
provement system, as carried on by the general government, is an extrava¬ 
gant and wasteful expenditure of public money for sectional purposes 
and benefits, and not for the general welfare of the union, and is unconsti¬ 
tutional and obnoxious to the people of this country. It is true sir, that 
so glaring was the iniquity of this system, as to rouse the noble feelings 
and the high sense of justice and duty of our distinguished chief magistrate 
to suspend its operation; but sir, have we any assurance that it will not 
be revived p besides sir, do the rights of the community rest upon the 
voice of a single individual, or upon the law and constitution of the coun¬ 
try. 


The tariff of protection to our domestic manufactures divested of dis¬ 
guise, is an ingenious subtle and dangerous violation of the constitution.— 
The constitution declares that Congress shall have power to lay and 
collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide 
for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, but all 
duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United 
States. Again sir. Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations. 

Again, no preference shall be given by an} r regulation of commerce or 
revenue to the ports of one state over those of another. 

Whereas it is manifest and almost as plain as demonstration, that the 
prohibitory or protecting system of duties, although uniform in their appear¬ 
ance, are sectional and partial in their operations, producing unequal 
taxation in one section of our country for the benefit and patronage of 
another; and instead of being intended to regulate commerce and raise 
revenue, is calculated to destroy commerce and revenue, and force upon 
the people of this country direct taxation for the support of the expenses 
of the general government. 

It is true sir, from circumstances, beyond the control of Congress, this 
system has not produced as great benefits to its friends nor as great evils 
to its enemies as were expected to have been realised from it. 

But sir, aperseverence in it may accomplish, to its full extent, the ends 
for which it was designed, which would justly rouse the people of this 
country to a spirit of hostility to the general government that would ter¬ 
minate in a dissolution of the compact. 

To avert such dreadful consequences, is the earnest desire of everv 
friend to his country. 

Again sir, a violation of the constitution so flagrant, I cannot look upon 
without the most frightful apprehensions. 






t 25 ] 

A submission ou our part, without further exertions, to the unconstitu¬ 
tional legislation of Congress, will give them a precedent to authorise 
and sanction a future and further abuse of power. 

The experience ol mankind shews sir, that the rulers of government, in 
every age and nation, have been disposed to extend their powers, hence 
springs the necessity of written constitutions to bind them. But of what 
avail are such instruments, if the true spirit, meanings and intentions are 
disregarded and violated without redress? The federal government 
differs widely and happily from any institution of ancient or modern es¬ 
tablishment, possessing national powers, and at the same same time 
limited by certain restrictions and reservations, that make it a mere con¬ 
federation of other governments. 

To a more perfect understanding of the relations in which the state and 
general government stand to each other as independent parties, they 
have established certain articles of agreement, called a Constitution. 

This compact is equally obligatory on both parties, and a flagrant 
violation of it by one party releases the other part}' - , from their obligation 
and duty of obedience. The question naturally arises, who are the judges 
of such a violation of the constitution ? To that question, I reply, with 
the remarks of Mr. Jefferson, which are to my mind most satisfactory and 
conclusive. The government, says Mr. Jefferson, created by this compact, 
was not made the final conclusive judge of the extent of the powers dele¬ 
gated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the con¬ 
stitution, the measure of its powers; but, as in all other cases of compact 
among parties having no common judges, each party has an equal right to 
judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of re¬ 
dress. How far the state will, or ought to go, to right herself, and relieve 
her citizens, is a serious consideration, involving the most solemn ques¬ 
tions of policy and expediency, which, if right, belongs, and ought to go to 
the people, in their sovereign capacity in convention. 

A convention of this state established the federal constitution, and is 
therefore the proper competent tribunal to set in judgment upon a flagrant 
violation of that instrument, to put their construction upon it in the most 
solemn, deliberative and authoritative manner, and to determine upon the 
mode and measure of redress. 

Your state constitution solemnly declares, that all power is originally 
vested in the people, and all free governments are fouoAH on their autho¬ 
rity, and instituted for their peace, safety, and ha? The present 

dispute with the general government is a great natiw.,,, inject, in which 
the people consider their rights to be involved. They have urged the pro¬ 
priety of a convention. Considering it as consistent with the dictates of my 
conscience, and the republican principles of the government, I feel it my 
bounden duty to represent their sentiments, and comply with what I re¬ 
gard as their rightful demand. 

Again,sir,a convention will allay the great excitement now prevailing— 
enlighten the public mind—settle, authoritatively, the doctrines upon the 
subject of state rights—-produce harmony of sentiment and co-operation 
of measures. It is, sir, objected to the Legislature’s setting in final judg¬ 
ment on this matter. 

1st. Serious doubts are entertained, whether the Legislature is a com¬ 
petent tribunal to pronounce judgment upon an unconstitutional act of 

4 


I 20 ] 

Congress; and possessed of authority to enforce the execution ofitsjudg- 
ment, as far as policy and expediency would or might dictate. 

2d. The Legislature are elected more for local than national purposes, 
and are too busily engaged in the ordinary business of state legislation, to 
pay that solemn and exclusive attention which so important a matter 
deserves. 

3d. The state would lose the valuable services of distinguished indivi¬ 
duals, who are constitutionally disqualified from seats in your legislative 
assembly. 

My fears on the danger of convention are put to rest, when I consider, 
and believe, sir, that assembly will be composed of citizens, distinguished 
for their wisdom, virtue, and patriotism, selected from every department 
in life,and every office in the state. 

It is not for me, nor for this Legislature, to dictate what course tliatau- 
gustbody ought to pursue—it is sufficient for me, sir, that I believe all things 
will be done according to the will of the people, and they possess too high 
a reverence for their political institutions, and the memory of their ances¬ 
tors who formed them—too high a regard for their own peace, safety and 
happiness, notwithstanding the evils and injustice of the prohibitory sys¬ 
tem, rashly and unadvisedly to dissolve the political ties that unite this 
state to the union. 

No, sir, I believe they will hear the evils longer, and until they become 
moi e intolerable and dangerous than the dissolution of the government 
itself. I am, sir, devotedly attached to the union. I revere, most sacred- 
ly, the principles on which it is established. God grant, the blessings 
derived from them, may descend from generation to generation. But, sir, 
it is the settled conviction of my mind, that if the abuses of the general 
government are not corrected—the original purity of the constitution pre¬ 
served—the rights of the individual states respected, such is the diversity 
of interest, and the peculiar domestic policy of each state, in our wide ex¬ 
tended republic, wc can not—will not continue many years, a happy and 
united people. 11J 


***$+/) 

I. GRAYSON'S SPEECH. 


, .^ R * k RAY s°N said. That he approached the subject under discussion 
Withextreme reluctance. It was one of vital importance to the state—to 
the Tinted-States. It involved the prosperity, perhaps the existence of 
the whole republic. He had seen it producing a difference ol opinion 

among men, who merited the ei,^confidence of the people-men of the 
best talents, the purest virtue, the deepest learning in our constitutions 

IWt» a t' VS ' . ‘ mlght w .f H b '‘ c " me him > fhen . *« attempt, with distrust and 
hesitation, to occupy the attention of the senate. And yet it was one of 

those important turns in the condition of a state, in which it became the 

duty of every man to think with independence, and to express his opinions 

temperately, but frankly, and decidedly, feet him buFbe assured lhat 


> 


! ; e urged by no improper motive—no lurking ambition—mo mean thirst 
lor office, either here or elsewhere, and lie may make the sacrifice of his 
personal exertions at the shrine of his country’s welfare with perfect 
confidence that the offering will be acceptable, however humble. 

It may indeed be proudly said, for South Carolina—it must constitute 
no unsound reason for confidence in her future fortunes, that however 
divided at present, there is but one wish expressed by all parties in the 
state the wish to do their duty. What is that duty, is the subject of 
every man’s enquiry. What ought to.be the object of our deliberations P 
What do the people require at our hands ? For what have thev sent us 
here? 

Is it to discuss the uncoristitutionality of the tariff? To measure the 
extent of the usurpation of which we complain—to weigh the mass of 
oppression by which we are degraded—to ascertain by drachms and 
scruples how far we can yet Dear the load of unjust and tyrannical exac¬ 
tions —whether we mav not by some small change of posture render the 
chain less galling? Or shall we taunt the people of South Carolina with 
the kind reflection that something of their embarrassed and pitiable con¬ 
dition, may be the result of their own imprudence, or the want of cautious 
foresight in their own rulers. I have heard the gentleman from Darling¬ 
ton with pleasure. He cannot speak on this subject or any other without 
conveying information; but he will pardon me if I continue to believe 
that we have not been sent here to talk about the constitutionality of the 
tariff’. On this subject there is no difference of opinion. But one voice 
of indignant conviction is heard from the sea coast to the mountains. All 
admit the existence of the evil —it is the remedy that the people demand. 
And will they be satisfied with a cool debate on political economy? With 
an ingenious calculation of how much they are injured, or how much they 
may be benefited by an invasion of their rights? It is the duty of this 
Legislature to devise a mode by which those rights shall be vindicated. 
What is that mode? What is the preliminary measure by which a law, 
deemed unconstitutional, may be resisted consistently with the nature of 
our government. Ts it not to submit the law to the tribunal competent to 
judge ? If we believe with Mr. Webster that the court at Washington is 
adequate to decide on the reserved rights of the states, should we not 
immediately carry the case into that court—make up an issue, and call 
on the federal judges to determine? But we deny the supreme court to 
be a tribunal competent to decide on the rights of a sovereign state.—- 
This is the opinion of the state—it is that of the republican party through¬ 
out the United States. What then is the proper tribunal ? We reply, 
a convention of the people of South Carolina, by whose grant alone Con¬ 
gress exercises any power over this state. They are the sole judges, so 
far as South Carolina is concerned, of what powers they have yielded 
and what they have not. 

If they are not the judges, they have granted to some other party the 
right to decide. The constitution must contain the.grants. Let it be 
produced. Let the clause be pointed out which affirms that whenever a 
dispute shall arise between the general government and the state govern¬ 
ment, on the extent of their respective powers, the former shall be the 
exclusive judge. There is no such clause. No right then to be the sole 
judges of their own powers is conveyed to Congress. No such right can 




be given. The people of the state not only have not granted this tremen¬ 
dous power, but they cannot grant it. It would be incompatible with 
their present form of government—a confederacy of states, holding reserv¬ 
ed rights, and retaining their state governments. There can be no 
reserved rights where the very party is constituted the sole judge of their 
extent and nature, from whom they are professedly withheld. This 
would indeed be putting the lamb at nurse with the wolf. There can 
be no state government, if its powers depend on the opinion of the 
general government from which those powers have been expressly reserv¬ 
ed. But if, in every dispute arising between the general and state govern¬ 
ment as to the extent of their respective powers, the people of this state 
should constitute the general government the exclusive judge, the opinion, 
the construction of that government would be the sole test of the right 
enjoyed or claimed by the state government. Its powers then would be 
held from Congress not from the people. They would virtually cease to 
exist, and our government would be in substance a national government 
with the forms only of a confederacy. Give to the general government 
the right to be the sole judge of its own powers, and you give it 
everything—all reservations would be ridiculous. Suppose it manumit 
your slaves. It is no answer to tell us that this would unite the whole 
south. Upon what principle, by what right would we resist the law ? If 
the general government be the sole judge of its own powers, and it 
determine that it holds this power, where would be our appeal or reme¬ 
dy ? But yes, we are told there is a remedy—we have an appeal to the 
natural right ol rebelling. This then is the sum total of state rights, the 
right to rebel—n creed soon learned and assuredly not requiring the 
labors of Jefferson’s long life to be successfully taught. But is it not a 
solecism to predicate such a property of a sovereign state ? The right 
to rebel!!! It is the right of the subject against his prince—of the slave 
against his master; not of a sovereign confederate state. It belongs to 
every county of England, every department of France, everv portion of 
brutalized Turkey, every conquered and dependent kingdom of barbarian 
Russia (her serfs have the right of rebelling against the natural right of 
their masters) to crush rebellion by the chain and knout. And has .South 
Carolina a sovereign confederate state no rights ? Is she, for all practical 
and valuable purposes, in no other condition than the province of a great 
empire r Does she then, except in form, differ from one ? Is not this 
government a consolidated government, and is not South-Carolina the 
petty province of a great nation with the rights only of every other province 
on earth, the right to petition, to resolve, and to rebel P 

But it is replied, there is a difference. We have the right to secede. 
TVe may abandon the union, when we believe it too oppressive to be endur¬ 
ed. And whence do we derive this right ? Is there one word about it in 
the constitution of the United States, where, only, it seems to be the fash¬ 
ion of the day to look tor state rights ? If it exist, does it not rest oil the 
same principle for which we are contending ?—that the people of the state 
are the judges of the extent of the powers which they have granted to the 
general government. Suppose the time to have arrived, which, in our 
judgment, justifies secession—Are we quite sure, that we shalHbe per¬ 
mitted to secede? Will the majority in Congress, who have need of us, 
ifllow us to leave them ? Will they' not say to us then, as they do now', 


we recognize no such right as that which you claim? The constitution 
says nothing about it. It declares, on the contrary, that the union shall 
be perpetual. It would be a dangerous innovation to allow one state to 
abandon the rest; it would expose the whole continent to injury, to for¬ 
eign interference, to standing armies, and fortified posts. The general 
■government is the sole judge of the powers vested in itself, and it decides 
that the secession of a state is incompatible with those powers. The union 
shall be preserved, would be their language. The right of secession, then, 
on which gentlemen rely, is the naked right of rebellion; and, according 
to their doctrine, the rights of the states are narrowed down to the bare 
right of revolt. 

But what is the substance of the. objection against a sovereign state’s de¬ 
ciding for herself what powers she has granted, and what she has not ? 
These objections are drawn from the inconvenience resulting, or supposed 
to result from such a power to judge. It would embarrass the majority— 
it would throw obstacles in their way—it would compel them to consult, 
not their own interest, merely, but the interest of every state in the union. 
We admit it. We admit that the right which every state retains to deter¬ 
mine for itself, whether the power asserted over it by Congress be granted 
or assumed is attended with inconvenience to the majority. We rejoice that 
jt is so—that if twenty-three states combine to plunder the twenty-fourth, 
there is a feature in our form of government which serves as a wall of ada¬ 
mant between the victim and the oppressor. It is true, that this grand con¬ 
servative principle of the confederacy may be resorted to by a state, capri¬ 
ciously and unreasonably. But does it therefore follow, that the right 
does not exist ? Are we gravely to be told, that we have no rights, be¬ 
cause we may abuse them. Will it be believed, that the people of this 
state cannot interpose and determine a law of Congress to be unconstitu¬ 
tional, because they might exercise that right from whim or caprice, im¬ 
properly and unreasonably ? Does any such danger exist r Look to the 
past. \Ve have for years been complaining of a law which all parties 
deem partial, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional. What has been 

done?_Nothing. What will be done?—Absolutely nothing. Where, 

then, is this mighty danger which is supposed so imminent and monstrous 
as to be absolutely inconsistent with good government? It exists in the 
imagination only, of the opponents of state rights. No state will, or can 
interpose to protect itself from the usurpations of Congress, but in an ex¬ 
treme case. 

All such objections, indeed, are objections to our form of government. 
If thev prove anything at all, they prove that a confederacy of states con¬ 
tinuing to be sovereign, is not a desirable government—that to avoid the 
dangers of collision and disunion,you must abolish the state sovereignties. 
This is the doctrine, the language of General Hamilton in the convention. 
He thought he saw evils resulting from the power, which he was too sharp 
sighted not to perceive,must remain with a sovereign state, to judge of her 
own rights. He therefore expressly and repeatedly declared, that the 
state sovereignties must be abolished. I here could other w ise bo no goot 
government established. No modification of the confederacy would do. 
The states must be annihilated. I hold his speech in my hand, in the shape 
of an appendix, to that of a distinguished gentleman ot this place, deliv¬ 
ered some years since. The speech of General Hamilton perpetually 



[ 30 ] 

repeats the injunction to abolish the state sovereignties. Delenda estCar- 
thago. He is a very Cato in perseverance. The convention nevertheless 
rejected the proposition. And shall we permit the general government vir¬ 
tually to adopt it ? If thatgovernment be the sole judge of its own powers, 
the state sovereignties substantially cease to exist. 

The people, then, of Soufh-Carolina, have the right to judge for them¬ 
selves what powers they have granted, because they have never conceded 
that right—because they could not concede it. The abandonment of the 
right to the general government, would involve necessarily the abolition of 
all reserved powers—-of all state governments ; and would leave to the 
states nothing but the naked, natural right of revolution. It would reduce 
them to the condition of subjects, of the mere province of an empire, 
from the character of which they essentially differ. But such a conclusion 
would be absurd, and the reasoning must, therefore, be erroneous which 
seeks to establish it. 

What, then, it is finally asked, if the people of South-Carolina determine 
that the tariff is unconstitutional, what follows next? If a tribunal com¬ 
petent to try the question, decide that the law is contrary to the consti¬ 
tution, what becomes the duty of the government against whose act the 
judgment is given ? Is it not to submit to the decision ? Bur the general 
government will not yield. It will maintain its usurpation by force—It 
will put down the judgment of the people of South-Carolina with the s e.rie 
contempt with which it treats the protests of its Legislature* if it come 
to this—if the people of this state be compelled to decide whether they 
will submit to open, palpable, undisguised tyranny.—If they believe sucii 
submission consistent with the honor, and ultimate prosperity and peace 
of South-Carolina—with the glorious examples of those noble spirits to 
whom the little finger of oppression was a weight too grievous to be borne, 
one of whom yet lives, and even now invokes—commands you to resist— 
be it so. We will at least have done all that the forms of our government 
permit, and enjoins us to do, and our rights will fall the sacrifice, not of 
our feeble acquiescence, but of involuntary submission to brute force. 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

DECEMBER, 1830. 


Resolutions reported by the Committee on Federal Relations . 

1. Resolved , That the Legislature of the state of South Carolina, doth unequivocally 
express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the constitution of the United States 
and the constitution of this state, against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, 
and that they will support the government of the United States in all the measures 
warranted by the former.— Madison. 

2. Resolved , That this Legislature most solemnly declares a warm attachment to 
the union of these states, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for 
this end it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles 
which constitute the only basis of that union : because a faithful observance of them 
can alone secure its existence, and the public happiness.— Madison. 

3. Resolved , That this Legislature doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it 
views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which 
the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and. intention of the instrument 
constituting that compact; and in case of a deliberate and palpable and dangerous 
exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties 
thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress 
of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights 
and liberties appertaining to them.— Madison. 

4. Resolved , That the several states, comprising the United States of America, are 
not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but 
by compact, under the style and title of a constitution of the United States, and of 
amendments thereto, they constituted a government for special purposes; delegated 
to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary 
mass of right to their own self government; and that whensoever the general govern¬ 
ment assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force. 
That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party. That 
the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge ot 
the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discre¬ 
tion and not the constitution, the measure of its powers ; but that, as in all other cases 
of compact between parties having no common judge, eacli party has an equal right 
to judge for itself, as w 7 ell of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.— Jeffer¬ 
son. 

5. Resolved , That this Legislature doth also express its deep regret that a spirit 
has in sundry instances been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its 
powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and 
that indications have appeared ofa design to expound certain general phrases, (which 
having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former articles oi 
confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning 
and effect of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the 
general phrases; and so to consolidate the states by degrees into one sovereignty; 
the obvious tendency and inevitable result of which w 7 ould be to transform the present 
republican system of the United States into an absolute government, without any 
limitation of power.— Madison. 

6. Resolved , That the several acts of the Congress of the United States imposing 
duties on imposts, for the protection of domestic manufactures, have been and are, 
highly dangerous and oppressive violations of the constitutional compact, and t hat 

’ whenever the states which are suffering under this oppression shall lose all reasonable 








[ 32 ] 

hope of redress from the wisdom and justice of the federal government, it will be their 
right and duty to interpose, in their sovereign capacity, for the purpose of arresting 
the progress of the evil occasioned by the said unconstitutional act. 

7. Resolved, That this state having long submitted to the evil, in the hope of redress 
from the wisdom and justice of the federal government, doth no longer perceive any 
ground to entertain such hope, and therefore that it is necessary and expedient that 
a convention of the people of this state be assembled, to meet after the adjournment 
of the ensuing session of the Congress of the United States for the purpose of taking 
into consideration the said violations of the constitutional compact, and devising the 
mode and measure of redress. 


D. E. HUGEIUS SPEECH. 

The above Resolutions having been read, and the three first approved by 

the Committee of the whole, Mr. Huger rose, and said— 

Although abstract propositions are inadmissible in sound legislation, 
he did not object to the resolutions of Mr. Madison, as they had been disa¬ 
bused of all uncertainty by thcable exposition of their distinguished author, 
and had been regarded, at the time they were adoped by the Virginia 
Legislature, as only referring to the constitutional remedies of “remon- 
stance,” “protest,” “application to their members of Congress, to pro¬ 
cure from that body the recommendation of such an amendment to the 
constitution as would prevent a recurrrence of the evils complained of,” 
and “ an invitation to the other states to apply to Congress for a conven¬ 
tion of the people of the United States.” These are the only constitutional 
remedies for unconstitutional legislation by Congress, independent of the 
federal judiciary. And to these the Legislatures of the different states 
are as adequate as conventions. To the two last, indeed, a convention is 
inadequate, as the constitution limits the first of these to the federal, and 
the last to the state Legislatures. 

Mr. H. observed, that, as he understood the 4th resolution, it was per¬ 
fectly harmless ; but as it had not been explained by its reputed author, 
(Mr. Jefferson) and we have no means of ascertaining the intentions of the 
Kentucky Legislature which adopted it, he was unwilling to risk the con¬ 
sequences of borrowing from another state language so uncertain and so 
liable to perversion. He would, therefore, move to amend the report of 
the committee on federal relations, by leaving out the fourth resolution, 
and indeed all that follow it, for the purpose of inserting the following 
resolutions:— 

1. Resolved, That this Legislature doth not recognize as constitutional, the right 
of an individual state to nullify or arrest an act passed by the United States in Con¬ 
gress assembled. 

2. Resolved, That the right of the people to alter or abolish old, and constitute 

new governments, is unalienable in its nature, and paramount to all constitutions, but 
should only be resorted to in cases of great oppression, or palpable and dangerous 
usurpations. ° 

3. Resolved, That any system of protecting duties, which shall destroy or essen¬ 
tially impair the commerce of the country, must be oppressive in its operation, and 




destructive of one of the principle ends for which the federal constitution was adopt 
ed. But the people of this state, conscious of their own attachment to the union, 
will be slow to believe that the federal government will persevere in such a system, 
and thus force upon them the conviction that the great ends of the constitution are 
not to he accomplished. 

4. Resolved, That this Legislature perceives in the enlightened and patriotic con¬ 
duct of the present administration, suilicient grounds to hope that measures will be 
speedily adopted by the federal government, to restore harmony to the union, and 
purity to the constitution. 

5. Resolved, therefore. That it is inexpedient at this time, to call a convention of 
the people, or adopt any other measures to embarrass the proceedings of the present 
administration. 

6. Resolved, That this state entertains the hope that her sister states will co-operate 
with her in such measures as may be necessary and proper to maintain, unimpaired, 
the rights and powers reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

These resolutions indicate the opinions he entertained on the subject 
referred to the committee. To the consideration of this subject he would 
proceed, oppressed by its importance; and enfeebled by indisposition ; so 
feeble was he that he felt more disposed to seek rest and quiet, than to en¬ 
counter the exhausting labor of a protracted debate; but said he, what the 
interest of my country demands, must be attempted ; if I sink in the effort, 
I shall at least have the consolation to reflect, that I have done all that it 
was in my power to perform. 

He observed, that the crisis was imposing, that on the proceedings of 
that committee, rested, in anxious solicitude, the eyes of the civilized 
world. Our ancestors had taught that man might be free, and was capa¬ 
ble of self-government. He trusted that it had not been reserved for that 
committee, or this generation, to prove the lessons of our fathers delusive; 
that freedom was but a phantom, and that now, as formerly—-here, as else¬ 
where, liberty must degenerate into licentiousness, and that to preserve 
the peace and order of society, more power was necessary than we had 
hitherto fondlv supposed. He begged, that on such an occasion the com¬ 
mittee would not permit their minds to be influenced by any other consid¬ 
erations than such as would justify their decision to the world and posteri¬ 
ty. That to their judgments, and not their passions, the people of this 
state had appealed ; that as far as he could, he had examined this subject 
dispassionately; that his only object was the happiness of the state, and 
if in the means of attaining that happiness, he had been mistaken, he would 
be grateful to any gentleman who would undeceive him : He trusted, with 
like disposition, all would proceed to the consideration of the report 
referred. 

The questions to which he would beg leave then to call their attention, 


were— 

1st. Are the tariff laws of 1824 and 1828 unconstitutional ? 

2d. Are they oppressive ? and 

5d. If oppressive and unconstitutional, what is the remedy t 

It is said that those laws are unconstitutional. That the people ot this 
state have so declared them in their primary assemblies ; that the Legis¬ 
lature of this state has again and again decided they were unconstitutional, 
and that the only fit subject of inquiry on the present occasion, is the reme¬ 
dy. I cannot concur in this opinion; the authority ot former Legislatures, 
jaud the people in their primary assemblies, is entitled to great respect 
>} )<; con elusive. -1 bljould riot 'satisfy my own oil so 


L 34 J 


por'tant an occasion, it 1 did not examine j’or myself the grounds on 
which these laws have been declared unconstitutional. I hope a majority 
at least of this committee, will not regard themselves precluded from this 
inquiry. Every one in this country lias a right to an opinion; it would 
not be extravagant to assert that it is the duty of every citizen to examine 
and to judge for himself: but of this i feel confident, that it is the duty of 
every member of this committee to preserve, protect, and defend the con¬ 
stitution of the United States. This cannot be done until he has ascer¬ 
tained what that constitution is, and then decide every question arising 
under it, to the best of his ability. This is a subject on which no instruc¬ 
tions can be given by the., constituent to the representative. What the 
constitution means—what it permits, must be made to appear from the 
instrument itself,and that can be only done by individual judgment. To 
permit the constitution to be construed, as popular whim or party interests 
might require, would at once defeat its ends, and substitute therefor, the 
will of every accidental majority, the very evil of which we now complain. 
.Let us then do what we require of others. Ascertain what the constitu¬ 
tion permits, and abide the consequences. 

Congress, it is admitted, lias the power to lay and collect duties to any 
extent, for the purposes of revenue. So far then as the tariff acts are for the 
purposes of revenue, they are constitutional. But it is said, that although 
these acts are entitled “acts tor raising revenue/’ they are in fact in¬ 
tended for the encouragement of manufactures. It is admitted that a 
couit would not ne authorized to look beyond the acts for their intention, 
and would therefore be obliged to regard them as constitutional; but if it 
be dangerous to permit courts to look beyond the acts for their intention, 
will any gentleman ol this committee be so good as to say, why it would 
not be equally dangerous and inadmissible to permit a Legislative body, 
when exercising judicial powers, to do so? Courts are as well organized 
lor the purpose, and more accustomed to the examination of witnesses 
and the sifting ot evidence, than a Legislative body can be. The rules 
by which the courts are governed have been proved by the experience of 
ages to be the best and safest. The best, and safest should be adonted bv 
Legislative bodies as well as courts. If this be so, this Legislature' wifi 
be obliged to declare those acts constitutional. 

But admit that these acts are intended for the encouragement of manu¬ 
factures as well as for revenue, are they therefore unconstitutional ?■_ 

1 he power ol encouraging manufactures has certainly not been expressly 
given to Congress; but powers have been expressly given, which if exer- 
cised must incidentally and necessarily encourage manufactures. At the 
date of the constitution, (and at this time) all civilized nations encourage 
manufactures, by regulations of commerce and protecting duties In 
giving therefore to Congress the power of regulating commerce and la vino- 
duties, the encouragement of manufactures must have been intended, li¬ 
the power to encourage manufactures had been expressly given, Congress 
must stiil have encouraged them by regulations of commerce and prelect¬ 
ing duties. It may be doubted it Congress could encourage manufactures 
y Pecuniary bounties, the power not having been expressly given * but 
this ot all modes ot encouraging manufactures, has been the least resorted 

the ! east W°ve4. It would ' 


have bce!1 MIc to give Congress the substantive power of e ’nco 


u raging 


, , L 35 J 

manufactures, when experience had proved pecuniary bounties ineligible, 
and the incidental encouragement arising from the regulations of commerce 
most efficient and best, it was for this reason the proposition to give 
such power expressly, was negatived in the convention. It cannot be 
forgotten that the writers of the Federalist, when recommending the adop¬ 
tion of the constitution to the people, affirmed this power. That the 
second act passed by Congress after the organization of the government 
under the constitution, was entitled an acKo raise revenue and encourage, 
manufacture f. That Mr. Madison, one of the most efficient members ot 
the convention, and one of the writers of the Federalist, introduced this act 
into Congress. That General Washington, who had been President ot 
the Convention, approved it, and that no opposition was made to the act 
on the ground that Congress had no such power. Mr. Jefferson, when 
President, had no doubt that Congress had this power, and in one of his 
messages pushed protection to prohibition. Mr. Madison, as well as Mr. 
Monroe, again and again called the attention of Congress to the encour¬ 
agement of manufactures, not doubting their power to protect them by 
regulations of commerce and increased duties. An argument lias been 
deduced from the 2d clause of the 10th section of the first article of the 
constitution, against the constitutional power of Congress to encourage 
manufactures. The words ot the clause are, “No state shall, without 
the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on exports or imports, 
except what may be absolutely necessary for exercising its inspection 
laws and the net produce,” &e. From these words it has been supposed 
that it was the intention of the convention, to leave to each state the pow¬ 
er, with the consent of Congress, to encourage her own manufactures by 
laying such protecting duties as she might deem necessary and proper, 
and consequently that it was not intended to give the power to encourage 
manufactures to Congress. It would not, however, follow, because any 
one state, in advance of the others, should be permitted to protect her 
manufactures at her own cost, that it was not in the power of Congress to 
extend protection to all as soon as they were ready for such a system.— 
Under this article, as understood by the argument, a state may have 
protected her manufactures; but under the power of regulating commerce 
and laying duties, Congress would still have the power to encourage 
manufactures throughout the states. But unfortunately for the argument, 
the 5th clause cf the 9th section of the first article declares, “thatno \es- 
sel bound to or from one state, shall be obliged to enter, clear or pay 
duties in another.” if, therefore, a state should obtain permission from 
Congress to lay heavy duties on articles imported from abroad, with a 
view*to her manufactures, her object would be defeated by the introduction 
of the very articles taxed by her, through other' states, duty free. It Geor¬ 
gia,for example, should procure the permission ol Congress to lay an addi¬ 
tional duty on woollens, woollens would be imported into Charleston, tor 
that state, and would, under the last recited clause, be conveyed from 
Charleston to Savannah, duty free—and thus would be defeated, not only 
the immediate object of their policy, but their commercial prosperity.-- 
But the object of the 2d clause of the 10th section oi the first article is 
very apparent, not only from tiie practice of the states immediately pre¬ 
ceding the adoption of the constitution, but from the use which has been 
made of it since. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Aorta Caro, i- 


I; j 

mi, South Carolina and Georgia, (and perhaps others) have, in succession, 
applied to Congress for permission, under this clause, to lay duties for 
other purposes, such as opening harbours, building hospitals, &c. &cV— 
(Acts of Congress.) 

It will not escape the attention of the committee, that the intention of 
leaving to the states the encouragement of manufactures is here deduced, 
from the power given to lay dutie-s, (with the permission of Congress;) and 
yet the power of encouraging nfanufactures is denied to Congress, although 
they confessedly have the power to lay duties to any extent and without 
control. 

Had the tariff acts of 1824 and 1828, been entitled “acts to raise reve¬ 
nue and regulate commerce,” it would seem that most of the objections 
already adverted to, would have been removed. It will not, I presume, be 
contended before this committee, that the omission of the words “to 
regulate commerce” in the titles of these acts, renders them unconstitu¬ 
tional. It Congress have the power to pass an act, it cannot be necessary 
to its constitutionality, that the clause giving the power should be recited 
in the preamble or title of the act. It has never been denied, that such 
powers as are given to Congress are supreme, and may be used to anv 
extent, not inconsistent with the great ends of the constitution. There is 
no other limit to the war power; the power of borrowing money is unlim¬ 
ited, and so is the power of regulating commerce. It may not be improper 
to jncjuiic what was intended by the pow r er to ‘'regulate commerce.”— 
i rior to the last war. Great Britain supplied our markets with woollen 
and cotton fabrics, and yet would not receive in return our bread stuffs. 
Her coi n laws have been, from the treaty of peace, cause of complaint to 
oui people. As soon as it was discovered that her settled policy would 
exclude fiom nei ports our corn, it became the policy of our government, 
to exclude as much as possible from our ports, her manufactures. At 
no moment, for forty years past, would our government have refused 
to her a “free trade.” Had she received our corn (bread stuffs) on rea¬ 
sonable terms, we should never have engaged in manufactures. It was to 
counteract this selfish policy, not peculiar to Great Britain, but common 
to an nations, that the regulation of commerce was given to Congress.— 
I he states did not separately, and perhaps could not, protect themselves. 

may ie heie asked, if Great Britain would not receive our corn ou^ht 
we to take her manufactures P As she treats us, so 1 think, we shall °ali 
say she ought to be treated by us. The lower the duties imposed by each 
°n the exchangeable productions of the other, the more beneficial to us, 
and 1 beheve to her. But of this we are not the exclusive judges; other 
nations must be permitted to manage their own affairs in their own wav 
and we must accommodate our policy to theirs. That the “power to 
regulate commerce” will be, and has been abused, cannot be doubted; our 
government is administered by men, not angels; and by men too, peculiar¬ 
ly exposed to the influence of sectional interests and party feelin-s. In 
our diversified country the majority of Congress and a majority of the 
people will be frequently induced to adopt measures beneficial to the 
majority, and distressing to the minority. But this is the price of our 
tree institutions. It is not now discovered for the first time, that a ma- 

be w ™ n s’ bllt il ™»t, I think, bo admitted, that the majority 
ai c much loss apt to be wrong than the minority: if this be not so, repub- 


I 37 J 

licanism must be a dangerous fallacy, and the sooner we return to the 
“ divine rights” of kings and princes, the better. If the encouragement 
of manufactures is a necessary result of the powers to lay duties and 
regulate commerce; if the convention so intended; if the people so un¬ 
derstood, when they adopted the constitution; if from the adoption of 
the constitution to the present time, all entrusted with the administration 
of the government, have so thought, and so acted ; if the states and people 
have for more than forty years acquiesced in this construction, this 
committee will be forced to the conclusion, that Congress have the power 
to encourage manufactures. However true this may be, Mr. Chairman, I 
can never be reconciled to the American system—by which, 1 understand, 
the prohibition of all articles from abroad which can be produced or manu¬ 
factured in the United States. 1 do not know how much farther its elo¬ 
quent but ambitious sponsor is disposed to extend it—perhaps, sir, he may 
not be satisfied with clothes from American looms, unless he is permitted 
to regulate the colour of the fingers by which the threads are spun—But of 
him and his unconstitutional project, I have no fears—the American peo¬ 
ple are too wise to be deluded by his genius, and if they should not resist 
his dazzling schemes, Carolina, if true to herself, can and will preserve 
her own peculiar policy. 

As far as the American system is calculated to impair or destroy the 
commerce of the country, it may be unconstitutional—as one of the prin¬ 
cipal ends of the constitution was to protect and extend commerce, and as 
far as the tariff acts of ’24 and ’28 are apart of the American system, they 
have an unconstitutional tendency; but to what extent i must leave to 
this committee to decide. If Congress have perverted the power of 
“regulating commerce” to its destruction, they may have been guilty, in 
the language of the “exposition,” of “a violation by perversion.” 

I have another, and l think, a more tangible objection to the unconstitu¬ 
tional tendency of this system. The constitution begins with this decla¬ 
ration, that, “We,the people of the United States, in order to form a more 
perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for 
the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings 
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this 
constitution for the United States of America.” 

I would, sir, ask if one of these objects can be attained by the adoption 
of any system which is obnoxious to several states ? To the manufactur¬ 
ing system near one third of the states are opposed, and strongly opposed. 
Can dissatisfaction lead to “a more perfect union?” Can a system, une¬ 
qual in its burthens, be regarded as just? Will it promote domestic 
tranquility? Will it provide for common defence? Above all, does ?t 
promote the general welfare ? Sir, I do not understand what is meant by 
the “ general welfare,” if some fifteen or sixteen states are to be gratified 
at the expence of seven or eight. The welfare of all the states, not a part 
of them, was intended to be promoted; and that system which enriches a 
majority at the expence of a minority of the states, will not promote the 
general welfare. A measure which would injure no state, but might en¬ 
rich a majority, or even one, might not be inconsistent with the general 
welfare; but one which does injure one-third or one-fourth of the states, 
though it benefit the rest, cannot be within the meaning of the constitution. 
As well might it be said that a father had provided for the general welfare 





I ^ ] 

of his family, who had given his whole estate to two-thirds of his children 
and left unprovided the remaining third. Sir, the constitution was the 
result of a compromise. Ifit be not administered in the same spirit if 
cannot be preserved, f hope, I yet hope, this spirit will revive. That 


..“V/ 1/ UO J/' Cl bill/ a VUhaUvUl 

of the constitution which judges cannot see, and which your own committee 
will not venture to assert is “ palpable.” Let it be remembered that it 
was only in cases of a palpable violation of the constitution that Virginia 
recommended state action. Let it be remembered also, that the action 
she recommended was peaceable and constitutional. If this will not do, 
which heaven forbid, be assured that no alternative remains blit to declare 
ourselves independent of our sister states. Enemies in war, and only in 
peace, friends. 

1 hope, sir, no gentleman of this committee is prepared to say, that if 
the tariff acts were not oppressive, he would yet be disposed to arrest 
them as violations of the constitution. A violation of the constitution, 
per se t though palpable, can never justify unconstitutional resistance.— 
The sedition and alien laws, though palpable violations of the constitution, 
in the opinion ot the Virginia Legislature of 5 9S, were not regarded by her 
as sufficient grounds to sustain an appeal to the sovereignty of the state. 
1 he bank charter, the embargo iaws, the system of internal improvements, 
and last but not least, the purchase of Louisiana and its subsequent adop¬ 
tion into the union, were thought unconstitutional. And yet no state has 
ever seceded from the union. Nor would South-Carolina be now agitated, 
it she did not believe the tariff laws oppressive, it would, sir, to me, be 
a matter of indifference whether a system pursued by Congress were con¬ 
stitutional or not, if it were ruinous to this state. 1 would alter and 
amend or change the government, ifit did not answer the ends for which 
it was formed. It is then of the last importance to ascertain with preci¬ 
sion the amount and character of the injuries of which we complain. If 
it be great and dangerous, we would bejustified in the opinions of mankind 
in any resisance we might make. If it be small or only perceptible, it 
would be rashness to adopt any course of action, which might risk the 
union. 

And what, sir, is the oppression we feel? As far as I can judge, we 
are more prosperous and happy than any other nation on earth. VVeare 
at peace with all the world. Our commerce, we are told by our own 
governor, is increasing; “that old channels have been widened and new 
ones opened to our trade.” The planter procures for his cotton the Liv¬ 
erpool prices, after deducting costs and charges. Our great staples are 
as high as they were prior to the tariff of 1824. The most deluded do not 
pretend that the Liverpool market has been affected by our tariff, it is 
not then of any direct injurious effect of tiie system that we complain. 

Let us then inquire what are-the indirect effects of the svstem. Cer¬ 
tain goods imported from abroad are taxed very high, and "consequently 
these and similar articles manufactured at home, sell at an advanced 
price; if, indeed, the protection already afforded, and the consequent 
competition among the home manufacturers, lias not reduced these arti¬ 
cles below the price at which the foreign manufacturer could afford to 



[ 39 j 


sell them in our market. The coarser cotton fabrics, it is believed, arc 
reduced below this price ; the most intelligent merchants are understood 
to be of this opinion; and the report of the Secretary of the Treasury in 
December ’29, sustains them, lie reports near two millions of dollars’, 
worth of the coarser cottons shippped to South America, which would not 
have been exported, if the American had not been able to compete with 
the British manufacturer in that market. Both pay the same duties there, 
and encounter the same difficulties in every respect, if under the same 
difficulties, the American manufacturer can compete with the British, he 
must be able to undersell him in our own markets, where British goods 
pay revenue duties and other charges, incident to all foreign markets, 
and where the American manufacturer has to pay no duties, and enjoys 
the advantages of a home market. The object of the tariff is to encourage 
the manufacturer of coarse, rather than line cottons. It was thought, 
and no doubt correctly, that in the infancy of manufactures, only the 
coarser fabrics should be attempted ; as for these, less skill and less labor 
are necessary. If this be correct, it follows, that the coarser cottons sell, 
not only lower than they ever did before, but lower than they would have 
sold if the tariff of protection had never passed. 

The coarser woollens, it is believed, sell higher than they would do, if 
the protecting duty were repealed, but not much higher; they now sell 
much lower than they ever did ; they would probably have fallen from 5 
to 10 cents a yardyii the protecting duty had never been imposed. But 
these are consumed to a much greater extent in the manufacturing, than in 
the staple states. They are necessarily more used in northern, than in 
southern latitudes. Of these, then, we have but little more cause to com¬ 
plain than the people in the northern states. It is not improbable that the 
farmers of the northern states receive, in a neighborhood market, for their 
produce, some equivalent for the higher prices they pay for their woollens. 
So far, the manuj'acturing system operates more to our injury than to 
theirs. But this, though objectionable, is not such an injury as would jus¬ 
tify any measure which would risk the union—and this injury will lessen, 
as the skill of the woollen manufacturer increases. Woollens must fall, 
and at no distant period, will probably be afforded by our manufacturers 
as cheap as they could be imported. It may also be observed, that the 
high price of woollens is kept up in some measure by the duty on wool, 
and wool is common to all the states. So far as the price of woollens is 
increased by the duty on wool, it ought not to be attributed to the manu¬ 
facturing system. It was imposed, not for the encouragement of the 
manufacturer, but the farmer. 

Iron, too, has been taxed highly; but iron is also common to all the 
states. The north, as well as the south, is affected by this duty; but per¬ 
haps in unequal proportions. It is believed the consumption of this arti¬ 
cle is much greater in the northern, than in the southern states; and 
greater there than in proportion to our respective productions. 

& It is said, however, that all duties are paid by the exporters of our sta¬ 
ples, and not by the consumers of the imports, it so, the southern states 
pay far more than their proper proportion or the expenses of the govern¬ 
ment ; and the manufacturing system is principally, it not exclusively, 
supported at their expense. It becomes necessary then, to examine this 
position—the authority to which it is traced commands the highest respect. 




r 4a ] 

It is, however, novel doctrine, and must be confessed to be at variance 
with long established opinions. I will attempt an analysis of the opera¬ 
tion. A planter sends or carries one hundred bales of cotton to Charles¬ 
ton—he there sells to the agent of a Manchester factory, for the Liverpool 
prices, after deducting costs and charges, say three thousand dollars—the 
cotton is shipped to Liverpool, and thence transported to the factory, 
where it is manufactured into cloth, which is in turn carried to Liverpool, 
where it is purchased by an American merchant of the Nevv-York market: 
it is there entered and the duty paid,and afterwards sold. The purchaser 
or consumer pays the Liverpool price, adding thereto the cost and char¬ 
ges and the duty. It he does this, the duty is not paid by the planter—If 
he does not, the merchant must, for he entered them at the custom-house; 
but the merchant would not often do this, without incurring the consequen¬ 
ces of bankruptcy; but in no case could it fall on the planter, unless he in 
turn becomes the purchaser or consumer of imported goods ; if he pur¬ 
chases, lie unquestionably pays the duty on what he purchases, but no 
moie. If, indeed, a planter always expended the full amount of his crop 
in the purchase of such articles as pay duties, he certainly would pay as 
much as he would do ii his cotton was charged with an export duty; but 
this never happens. No planter expends the full amount of his crop in 
tne purchase of imported articles, and if he did, he would pav for con¬ 
sumption, not for exportation. It is true, if the planter should think pro- 
per to risk his S3°0° in the purchase of hats in Liverpool, and ship them 
to Philadelphia, he would probably have to pay the duty, as hats are manu- \ 
lactui ed theie as cheap as they are in Liverpool; but this would not be 
done by a merchant who is not acquainted with his business ; he would 
take care to purchase nothing for the American market, which in that 
market would not sell for a sufficient sum to cover costs, charges and du- i 
ties, if tne planters do not expend the amount of their crops in the pur¬ 
chase of such articles as pay duties, and the whole of their crops go to 
Liverpool, and the amount returned to America in manufactures, it must 
follow, that what is not consumed by the planters, is consumed by others, 
and they pay the duties on as much as thev consume. How much of his 
crop !s generally expended by the planter, in the purchase of articles pav¬ 
ing duties, it is difficult to ascertain ; in most cases but little, in no case 
probably more than a fourth. If the planters should, on an average ex¬ 
pend one fourth of their incomes in the purchase of such articles, itVouid 
follow, that on every hundred bales they would pay six and a quarter for 
the encouragement of manufactures, and as much more to the support of 
government. Hus calculation is made on the assumption, that imported 
articles pay, on an average, fifty per cent, duty, one half of which is for the 
protection of manufactures, and the other for the support of government. 
It does not appear, however, from the annual reports of the Secretary of 
the I reasury, that much more revenue has been received than is sufficient i 
°[ t ie . P ur P 0SCS of government, although fifty per cent, are paid on import¬ 
ed articles, it may be that as much or more may have been received had 
the duty been twenty-five per cent. less. But this is conjectural, too im- 
ca tain by far to induce us to decide that more revenue has been col¬ 
lected, than was required for the legitimate purposes of the government 
d no more has been collected than was proper, how can it be assumed that 
' ' l lQ * -wvebeen laid for other purposes than revenue? It will not bS 




E 41 ] 

denied that Congress have the power to discriminate the duties, to tax 
certain articles higher than others, and thus to protect incidentally manu¬ 
factures. 

It, sir, I have not been mistaken in the views I have presented of the 
incidental effects of the tariff acts, we have not sufficient cause to sanction 
any extra constitutional measures. We do not consume as much as our 
fieilow-citizens beyond the Potomac, and the consumers pay the duty; the 
manufacturer is encouraged at the common expense of all thei consumers 
in the United States; and such of the consumers as live south of the Poto¬ 
mac, have only cause to complain, because they have not a neighborhood 
market. Ido not deny, I cannot be blind to the probable effects of this 
hated system on our commerce ; it persevered in, and extended, our direct 
trade with the purchasers of our great staples, must be materially embar¬ 
rassed, if not entirely destroyed ; it is to this effect I look with most ap¬ 
prehension, but this is a remote and uncertain consequence. Congress 
may not persevere—I hope they will not—our apprehensions may bo 
groundless—the mercantile spirit of our people is enterprising—new 
channels for commerce may be discovered. At all events, it will be time 
enough when experience shall have confirmed our fears, when commerce 
shall be seen to languish, to interpose the sovereignty of the state, to risk 
that government which has hitherto been regarded as a source of blessings 
to us all, and has received the applause and admiration of the civilized 
world. 

Even when in the hands of southern men, our sectional interests were 
yielded to the general good. The valley of the Mississippi was acquired 
at the common expense for the general good, and yet to this we owe the 
depreciation of our lands, and the reduced price of our cotton. To this 
measure we not only submitted, but were its most zealous supporters, and 
were it to do again, we should approve the measure, from its military and 
political importance to the west; and it is to southern—-to Carolina states¬ 
men, we owe the exhausting system of internal improvements. But when, 
or where, did Carolina ever shrink from unequal burthens, for the general 
good ? When lias she ever aske’d one favor in return ? Her soil bears 
no impress of the nation’s hand—her shores know no guard but her own 
Palmetto ; millions have been squandered on the ways of others, and yet 
our Charleston knows not, feels not, the benefits of a “common defence.” 
It has been the pride of this state, to be generous and national, her repre¬ 
sentatives have never calculated the profits of office ; they have been the 
devotees of honor, at the altar of patriotism. And shall we now alter our 
course P Shall we plan a new voyage, and calculate the profit and loss ol 
being honorable, generous, and national ? Sir, I know the world is becom ¬ 
ing more and more mercantile ; I am aware, it is thought, that the march 
of mind will stop nothing short of mathematical precision ; but I must be 
permitted yet to doubt the propriety of regulating the honor ofSouth-Caro- 
lina by the rule of three, of exchanging Washington’s legacy for a ledger, 
or of reducing patriotism into dollars and cents. I may be wrong, sir, 
very wrong, in the estimation of such as have no country, who are floating 
in the political hemispheres, as stars deprived of their centripetal force; 
but, sir, can you—can the members of this committee—can the sons of 
those heroic men, who, side by side, with Washington and Greene, fought 
and conquered in the cause of America—can they calculate the benefits 


L « ] 

of this union ? Can they calculate the blood which their lathees shed at 
Brandywine and Princeton—the glory acquired atYorktovvnand Trenton? 
Can they weigh this, all this, against four cents a yard on woollens ? If 
they can, we have lost the most valuable part of our inheritance. 

It is to be regretted, that human wisdom cannot equalize Ihe burthens 
of society; that government cannot be so administered as to confer equal 
benefit upon ail. From its commencement, the tendency of the adminis¬ 
tration of this government has been less beneficial to us than to others; 
hut administered as it has been, our government has afforded us more 
happiness, more prosperity, than any other people enjoy, much more than 
we shall probably enjoy under any other government which the ingenuity 
of man can devise. This nation, sir, arose under peculiar circumstances; 
the wisdom and virtue which were elicited and matured by our revolution¬ 
ary struggles, have never been equalled in any other age or nation. It is 
to this extraordinary combination of virtue and wisdom, that our present 
constitution owes its being. It may not be perfect, but let us take care 
how we change it—another revolution may produce other men; a Wash¬ 
ington we have had—a Cromwell we may have. 

But, sir, admit that the constitution has been violated—that the tariff 
imposes unequal burthens; are we therefore to call a convention of the 
people ? What remedy could a convention afford ? Some appear to re¬ 
gard a convention as empirics do theirpanaceas—a perfect cure for all evils, 
great and small. But, sir, can you, can this committee, countenance such 
quackery ? Can it be thought by the honorable members of this commit¬ 
tee, that a convention will embrace more talents, more wisdom, more 
virtue, than now exist in the state? Of the people of the state the conven¬ 
tion must be foimed ; and what talent and wisdom have we, thathave not 
been already put in requisition ? This committee is as adequate to de¬ 
cide what a convention can do, as any convention that could be assembled. 
It has been supposed by some, that the constitution is a treaty to which 
the states aie conti acting parties, each of which, when acting in conven¬ 
tion, is therefore authorized to declare gny act of Congress unconstitu¬ 
tional, null and void, and to arrest its progress. That the states were 
sovereigns prior to the adoption of the constitution, is not denied. As 
such it was in their power to relinquish any and all the attributes of sove¬ 
reignty. Scotland was once sovereign and independent; so was Ireland ; 
but they aie no longer so; they have blended their sovereignty with that 
of England, forming one nation, Great Britain. They had a right to do 
so, and their individuality is gone. ° 

The question is, how far have the states relinquished their sovereignty ? 
they have not relinquished all they possessed, must be admftted ; 
but that they have relinquished the greater part, I cannot doubt. No one 
can regret more than I do; the extent of the relinquishment. It would 
lave been better for South-Carolina to have been more alone; but our 
wishes cannot give construction to the constitution. It in no respect re¬ 
sembles a treaty. The contracting parties are the People. It exhibits all 
the forms of a government. It provides a legislature, an executive and a 
judiciary for the government of the people. The laws passed by Congress 
are declared the supreme law of the whole country: they operate imme- 

e ^ r u P on ^ iC P eo P* e > and not through the legislatures or governments 
cf i.e different states. Congress has a right to declare war. &c. and no 


[ 43 ] 

% 

state has a right to withdraw itself from the contest, or to make peace.-— 
To adhere to, to give aid and comfort to such as Congress shall declare 
enemies, is treason. The judges, not only of the federal government, but 
of the several states, are sworn to support that constitution j “any thing 
in the constitutions and laws of the several states, to the contrary not¬ 
withstanding.” The people in convention adopted it, and not their 
legislatures or governments. One branch of Congress is elected by the 
people of the United States, and although the Legislatures of the different 
states now prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections 
for this branch, yet “ Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter 
such regulations.” In short, the house of representatives is rendered as 
independent of the government of the several states, as they are of the 
government of Great Britain. These are not the features of a treaty, they 
belong to government; and the constitution of the United States is to all 
intents and purposes as much a government, as the constitution of any 
state. If the house of representatives is national in its character, the 
senate appears to be entirely federative. It represents the states in their 
distinct sovereign capacities; each state has not only an equal represen¬ 
tation in that body, but the members are appointed by the respective 
Legislatures, independent of congressional legislation. I he executive 
department of the government partakes of both characters, national and 
federative. The electoral colleges are composed of as many members as 
each state has representatives and senators; and should not the colleges 
give a majority to any one candidate, the president is elected by the house 
of representatives, voting by states. W ith these matures, the federal must 
be regarded as a mixed government, neither national or federative, but 
partaking of both. The 9th and 10th articles of the amendments to the 
constitution recognise this character. “ I he enumeration in the constitu¬ 
tion of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage otheis 
retained by the peopled “ Xhe powers not delegated to the United States 
by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the 
States respectively, cr to the peopled If this be a coirect exposition of 
the constitution, no state can by virtue of its sovereignty, interfere, but 
through its senators, with the legislation cl Congress, unless it be by pro¬ 
test, remonstrance, &c. 

Should Congress exercise powers not granted m the constitution, the 
federal judges can alone afford relief; they are constituted to dec«Je all 
questionsarising under the laws and constitution of the United States, as 
far at least as their peculiar organization will permit. In the case of 
Olmstead vs. Rittenhouse, the state of Pennsylvania thought herself 
a^orieved by the federal courts ; the Legislature intei feted ; the governor 
ordered out the militia to prevent the execution of the process of tne court; 
the marshal however prevailed; the execution was enforced; m conse¬ 
quence of which that state passed a “state right resolution, and called 
upon the other states to unite with her in supporting an amendment to 
the constitution, providing a tribunal to decide all questions ofconnicting 
rights between the federal government and the states, it is believed that 
no state in the union seconded the amendment. Virginia, toe champion 
of state rights, replied fully to the invitation, and insisted that such a 
tribunal was already established, (the supreme court) competent and 
elio-ible for the purposes contemplated by Pennsylvania. II this be so, 


I 44 ] x 

that state has abandoned that portion of-her sovereignty, which would, 
ii retained, have rendered an appeal to her sovereignty more plausible, 
and perhaps more efficient. 

It is, however, contended, that under the constitution a state may arrest 
a law of Congress, and prevent its operation within her limits, until three- 
fourths of the states declare the act of Congress constitutional. This 
power is certainly not expressly given, and it is probable if such had 
been the intention of the convention, it would have been dearly expressed, 
for no feature ot that constitution, for strength and character, is equal to 
this. It would have silenced the anti-federal opposition to the constitu¬ 
tion, it would have satisfied Mr. Jefferson himself that the rights of the 
states had not been enmpromitted. General Hamilton and Mr. Madison, 
two ol the most distinguished and active members of the convention, 
appear to have been totally ignorant of this great power. But it certainly 
does not follow as a matter of course that what they could not, or did not 
discover, does not exist. But if such a power does exist, it must be de¬ 
duced by a more attenuated rule of construction than has ever yet been 
applied to the constitution. It is not expressly given ; it is not expressly 
reserved; nor does it appear to be a part of the residum of sovereignty 
not granted to Congress. If it exist at all, it must be an implied or 
resulting power. It cannot be implied from the power given to two-thirds 
ot the states to demand ot Congress a convention of the people, for this is 
in no sense a call by the state for a convention; it may, if established, be 
the cause ot frequent calls tor a convention, but it is not in itself such a 
call; nor can it be implied from the clause which requires three-fourths 
ot the states to concur in any amendment proposed bv Congress, for Con¬ 
gress has proposed no amendment. It would be more analogous to infer, 
that until three fourths of the states had approved the veto, it was not 
constitutional. ^ It was evidently the intention of the convention to pre¬ 
vent frequent alterations ot the constitution, but two modes were therefore 
provided; each is much embarrassed, and that most which could effect 
the greatest changes. Two thirds of Congress may propose specific 
amendments to the constitution, which, when ratified by three fourths of 
the states, shall become a part of the constitution—the other mode opens 
a wider door to innovation, and is therefore more embarrassed. Congress, 
on application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the states, shall call a 
convention tor proposing amendments, but these amendments become no 
part ol the constitution until ratified by three fourths of the states. 

If the veto, or right to nullify, cannot be inferred from any of the clauses 
ot the constitution, so neither does it result from any power <dven. The 
states gave up much, but received little. There arc, I believe, but two 
other powers granted to the states, the first is that of electing senators, 
and prescribing the mode of electing representatives, until Congress 
shall interfere—4th section of the 1st article; the other enables them to 
appoint electors of president and vice president—2d clause of the 1st sec¬ 
tion of the 2d article. From neither of these, I presume, will the veto or 
right of nullification be supposed to result. Had the veto or right of nul¬ 
lification been deduced from the mass of residuary power left with the 
states,it would have been more plausible; but this, I understand has not 
been pretended; but it is pretended, that as sovereign parties, the states 
possess the power to construe the constitution as they please, and to 


[ 46 j 

interpose their power to arrest or prevent every infraction of it by Con¬ 
gress. This right is not deduced from the constitution, but is claimed 
under the law of nature and of nations. I am disposed to think, that in 
practice, it would make but little difference whether a state arrested the 
execution of ail act of Congress, under the law of nations, or by virtue of 
the right of revolution. In both cases the appeal is to the sword. If 
either of the contracting parties to a treaty refuse to comply with any part, 
the whole must be abandoned, as the different articles must be regarded 
as dependant covenants. If, therefore, the constitution be a treaty, as 
soon as a state shall interfere to arrest the execution ot an act of Congress, 
the whole constitution, or treaty, must be abandoned, and the parties 
must be left to the exercise of their natural rights, independent of all 
covenants; no more would happen if we resorted to the right of revolu¬ 
tion; and this is the only remedy that a convention can afford, to which 
this Legislature is not competent. If the incidental effects of the tariff* 
have not been oppressive, they may notwithstanding be dangerous, and it 
is, I admit, our duty to look to consequences. It is said, and apparently' 
with earnestness, that if Congress have the power to construe the consti¬ 
tution as they please, and the states have no power to restrain them, the 
federal government is one of unlimited powers, and therefore dangerous 
—Congress, however, is responsible to the states and to the people. 

The house of representatives is elected every two years, and the sena¬ 
tors every six years. Ifihey pursue a course disapproved by the people, 
the house of representatives will be changed by the people; if they act 
at variance with the wishes of the states, the senate will be changed by 
the Legislatures ofthe states. No bill can become a law, which has not the 
sanction of a majority of both houses, and is approved by the president, 
who in turn, must answer to the states and the people for Ids conduct, 
every four years. This, in fact, as well as theory, renders our governors 
amenable to the governed, and should a majority of the people, and a 
majority of the states, eoncur in approving an unconstitutional law, the 
judges ofthe supreme court have the power, and it is their duty, to de¬ 
clare it null and void. We have here the same security for a constitu¬ 
tional administration ofthe government, that we have in the states. This 
Legislature may pass an unconstitutional act, and it not arrested by our 
judges, would be enforced until repealed by a subsequent Legislature.— 
If a majority of the people, and a majority of the states, and a majority ot 
the judges, regard an act as constitutional, the presumption must be that it 
is so. Can a reason be assigned for supposing the judges ofthe supreme 
court less able, less honest, or less independent than our own? We 
know that our judges have not scrupled to declare the acts of this body 
unconstitutional, when they thought them so. If the federal government 
can promote their judges, so can this state our judges. If in any other 
way the federal judges can be influenced, so can ours. It appears to me, 
Mr. Chairman, that what the wisdom of South Carolina has thought a 
sufficient protection against the usurpations of this Legislature, may be 
regarded as sufficient to protect the people and states against the usurpa¬ 
tions of Congress. If, however, all this will not satisfy our jealousies, 
what will? Will it be pretended that one state ought to be able to control 
the rest of the states, and nineteen-twentieths ofthe people ol the United 
States? Sir, I might be induced to believe that such a power, if confided. 





[ 40 ] 

to Souiff Carolina alone, might not prove injurious; bull would not my¬ 
self be disposed to give this power to any other state in the union; and 
we could not very well recommend to our sister states to repose a trust in 
us, which we would be unwilling to repose in them. But if we were dis¬ 
posed so far to confide in other states, as to give to each a veto upon the 
proceedings of Congress, in what would the government then differ from 
the old confederation ? The great evils which were then experienced, 
would again recur; the constitution and laws of the union would present 
ns many different aspects as there are states. We should not only revert 
to our former feebleness at home, but to our former difficulties abroad ; 
we should be neither prosperous nor respected. But the question is not 
what the constitution ought to be, but what it is; no such power is possess¬ 
ed by a state, and 1 for one rejoice that it never was given. I abhor aris¬ 
tocracy; from infancy I have been taught to love the government of a 
majority; and nothing would reconcile me to a government which should 
give to a fraction of an unit a power over all. 

Sir, I am aware of the distinction which has been taken between the 
affirmative power of making, and the negative power of preventing the 
execution of a law. This distinction would disappear in practice. Nullify 
or obliterate from the records of our country all that has been done by 
Congress, and what would be the situation oi affairs?—Worse than could 
be apprehended from a monarchy. To no government, a despotism may 
be preferred. It is a part of the history of our government, that prior to 
the adoption of the constitution, so inadequate was Congress to effect 
any good, from the nullifying powers of the states, that many regretted 
the success of the revolution, and more were looking to monarchy, as the 
only cure for the total prostration of society. 

Having discussed the various questions involved in the consideration of 
the tariff, I must solicit the indulgence of the committee, while I recapitu¬ 
late briefly the conclusions to which I have been conducted. 

That Congress possess the power to encourage manufactures, I have 
no doubt. That they may use this power to an extent which may defeat 
the great ends of the constitution, I believe. That the majority of the 
people, in pursuit of their supposed interest, have been regardless of the 
minority, 1 fear, must be admitted. That the agriculturists north and 
west of the Potomac, share with us the burden of supporting this system, 
appears to me evident. That they are compensated in a greater degree 
than ourselves for the duties paid, is not improbable; but that the southern 
states are oppressed beyond bearing, is neither supported by the conduct 
of neighboring states, or by our own consciousness. That the southern 
states are to receive no compensation from the system, for the burthen it 
imposes, I must deny. It is desirable that we should be independent of 
Great Britain in fact, as well as in law. It was the glory of our fathers to 
have dissolved all political dependance on Britain—It will not be incon¬ 
sistent with the feelings and honor of their sons, to dissolve all commercial 
dependance. I have endeavored to show, that a state, cannot nullify or 
arrest the execution of an act of Congress, either under the law of nations, 
or the constitution of the United States, without risking the consequences 
of a national or civil war. That a convention of the people of this state, 
could constitutionally do no more than this Legislature, and indeed, not 
so much. That a convention may dissolve,but cannot preserve this union. 


L « ] 

1'his brings me to the precipice, on the brink of which we stand; one 
I step forward, and we are lost—lost forever to this union. And are we 
prepared for this. Can there be a heart in this assembly, which does not 
swell with anguish, at the thought of immolating on the altar of discord, 
the recollections of the revolution, the glory of our fathers, and the hope 
of civilized man ? Are our oppressions so great as to induce us to ex¬ 
patriate ourselves from the country of Hancock and Washington ? To fly 
oiTfromthat constellation, which has hitherto lighted our steps to prosperi¬ 
ty, and animated our bosoms to gladness ? Is it true, sir, that our situa¬ 
tion is so desperate that we must despoil our children of that inheritance, 
which we received from our fathers, coupled with a solemn injunction to 
transmit it to posterity ? It may be so, but if it is so, Mr. Chairman, our 
l fathers were the last of American patriots. 

I know, sir, that the high minded and honorable men, to whom I am 
opposed, fear no consequences, apprehend no dangers, and even hope to 
preserve the union, by threatening it. I would trust much to such men, 
but when the honor and happiness of my country are at stake, I must cal¬ 
culate and understand the consequences of every measure, by whomsoever 
recommended, before I can be induced to move. As far as I am permitted 
to see—as far as I can penetrate the future, a convention must endanger 
this union, or wound the honor of my country. If the convention shall 
move forward—if it shall assume an attitude hostile to the government, 
and Congress shall recede, what, sir, must be the effect on this union ? 
We shall have dishonored our own government. We shall have started 
the strands of that cord by which the states are bound together; we shall 
have fulfilled the prediction of its enemies ; we shall have proved that the 
union is but little more than a rope of sand. If Congress should not recede, 
if satisfied that a state has no right to arrest their acts, they should proceed 
to enforce them, where then will Carolina be? In arms; aye, sir,in arms, 
one and all; no son of hers will stop to ask the cause, if at her bosom a 
blow be aimed—And can we look to such a catastrophe without horror? 
Can we proceed in a course which may lead to such consequences, with¬ 
out a perfect conviction that our honor and the happiness of the state 
demand it? Recollect, sir, this will be no contest between American 
and Briton; but between Americans, fellow-citizens, children of the same 
family, legatees of one political father, Washington the great. 

Terrible to me as is this picture, I would, nevertheless, raise my voice, 
even for such a war, if demanded by the honor of the state. But let us 
take care, that we do not fall down and worship some false God. The 
honor of Carolina is not that of the duellist—it is not offended to blood, if 
her skirts are but touched—No, sir, her honor is of a more rational, more 
serious character—it demands nothing rash, it sets down naught in ma¬ 
lice, it commands us to do no wrong, and is satisfied only when we do 
what is approved by reason, judgment and prudence. Sir, I know, that 
we, who are opposed to what we believe to be rash, unconstitutional mea¬ 
sures, have been called submission men. I accept the appellation for 
myself. It has been the pride of my life, to submit to the laws ot my 
country. To her will, even without the obligation of a law, I have always 
submitted, and I hope to persevere in so doing, to the end of my last days. 
Sir, I have no interest, no expectations out of this state. Here I was 
born, and have lived, and here were born my ancestors unto the third and 



E 48 J 

fourth generations. Their blood has enriched, their ashes have sanctioned 
unto me,thissoil. Here live my children, aild their allegiance, I trust, will 
never be changed. The recollections of the past, entwined with the 
hopes of the future, bind me to Carolina. How much I have loved her— 
how much 1 have honored her, I will not, I cannot calculate. To her par¬ 
tiality I owe all that I am ; she encouraged me in youth, she confided to 
me in maturity; and now, when about to seek in her bosom, the everlast¬ 
ing resting place of my fathers, I can have no motive, no object but her 
welfare. When I left the high and honorable position in which she had 
placed me, to re-enter these walls, I abandoned all hopes of future pre¬ 
ferment. It was only the completeness of the sacrifice which would 
satisfy my devotion. I maybe wrong in the course which I have recom¬ 
mended, but I cannot be wrong in the motives by which I have been 
influenced. Should a convention be called—should Carolina be torn 
from her sisters, I will abide her fate—she has been all to me, and for her 
I would sacrifice my all. 


[In consequence of Mr. Wm. R. Hill’s Speech (being next in 
order of debate) not coming to hand in season , the Publisher has 
been compelled to follow on with the next in order.] 


J. P. RICHARDSON’S SPEECH. 

Mr. Richardson said, That on a subject so important, and on an occa¬ 
sion, to him, so novel, he could not but rise, under feelings of embarrass 
ment, almost overpowering him. But that a higher sense of duty than even 
these difficulties could control—an obligation which none but a traitor 
dare disregard : his constituents, his conscience, and his country,demand- 
ed this sacrifice of feeling from him, as unworthy as it was; but certainly 
the most painful and unpleasant, that he could be required to make. He 
had accorded with the proposition which had been made, to take the ques- : 
fion on the subject without debate ; because, as the instructed agents of : 
the people, the opinions of members were neither susceptible of change or 
impressions. lie asked, if coming as they did, from amidst the bosom of 
their constituents, with their understandings enlightened by all that reason 
and argument and eloquence could elaborate—with their decisions matur¬ 
ed by the frequent occasions of discussion, produced by the conflict of 
opinions, and with the sentiments of the people impressed upon their con¬ 
victions, in the most solemn and impentive manner—was it within the 
influence of a discussion, however able or animated, to pervert or efface 
determinations so deliberately formed? But, if the committee must en¬ 
gage in a discussion so elaborate, he hoped that it would assume a spirit 
and character, comporting with the dignity and importance of a question, 
which, in the conception of at least one half of the citizens of the state, 
periled their peace and their liberties, and which nothing but their volun¬ 
tary approbation could justify, and nothing but an unanimous impulse 
could render successful Before, however, he proceeded to enter more 








[ 49 ] 

fully into the discussion of the subject, lie must protest against the influ¬ 
ence of an impression, which he believed was the predominant motive of 
the advocates of nullification, but which he could assure them, was as fal¬ 
lacious as it was dangerous. 

He said, that gentlemen, in the course which they proposed, seem actu¬ 
ated rather to preserve consistency for the character of South-Carolina, 
than to obtain redress for her wrongs.—That they urged with a sensibility 
that seemed only to regard her consistency—that the honor of the state 
was committed by the resolutions—the remonstrances—the protests and 
expositions, by which, the assumed powers of the federal government had 
been denounced, not only to sustain, but to advance in the controversy.— 
That she was pledged, not only to preserve an attitude of moral resistance, 
but by the exercise of power and violence to correct the abuses of the con¬ 
stitution. 

He believed, that on this ground, there existed a broad and obvious dis¬ 
tinction between the state rights party ot 1825, and the nullifiers of 1830. 
The objects of the former, were the reformation ot political abuses—the 
ends of the latter would be revolution and civil war. He contended, that 
in a conflict of opinions between parties appealing to the constitution, 
that principles could be vindicated without violence and sustained with¬ 
out warfare. But if, as it lias been said, a progressive course of resis¬ 
tance was the only consistency with the previous attitude of the state ; 
should it not startle at the terrific precipice, when it interposed to arrest 
that progress ? or should it leap down to certain destruction for the sake of 
consistency P He said, there was no justice in reproaching South-Carolina 
for startling at dangers, to encounter which, was not patriotism, but sacri¬ 
fice.—And least ofall, would it be befitting in this Legislature to rebuke 
the confidence of a people, who, in the guilelessness of their hearts, and in 
the warmth of their affections, had followed its banner in the contest with 
federal power, from resolutions to remonstrances—from protests to expo¬ 
sitions ; and had never even paused or faltered, until another step must 
plunge them into civil war. And now that their awakened senses revolt¬ 
ed a? the discovery of dangers, into which their confidence in our wisdom 
had beguiled them—would we reproach them for the very confidence 
which lead them thus far? He asked, if we could now be told with pro- 



suggestion was potent now to impel us in an onward course, would its 
efficacy be lost when we approached to the brink of disunion ? 

Mr. R. said, that the character of South-Carolina could be successfully 
vindicated from a charge of inconsistency, in not following up her princi¬ 
ples with violence and force. That her attitude towards the general gov¬ 
ernment since 1825, had been one of moral resistance to violations of the 
constitution, contemplating neither hostility nor violence. That her con- 
and opinions had settled upon principles, to maintain which was 
Y and honor; but to deviate from which, on either side, whether urged 


duct 

safety 


by the madness or the timidity of her statesmen, was destruction 01 dis- 
Torest upon the moral basis which she has thus assumed, with a 
diich is neither to be bribed by its spoils nor its plunder, to sanction 


grace. 


spirit which is neither to be bribed by its spoil 
violations of the constitution ; and yet to forbear from a revolutionary 


L oo 


violence, even while writhing under an oppression that reaches the cii- 
cumstances of every man, shews that our struggle is not for profit, but for 
principle. Whether that high moral eminence was to be maintained, was 
to be decided by this question—on which we stand as the defenders of her 
rights, with reason and patriotism as our allies; or from which we must be 
dragged by the violence of our opponents, to mingle in a revolutionary 
strife, and contend for our country or our state, as the prize or the victim, 
lie acquitted, he said, gentlemen who were advocating the measures to 
which he was opposed,of being actuated by such motives; but that it was 
the inevitable consequences of those measures, if pursued, he thought as 
certain as the existence ot the republic. Innocent as a convention may 
abstractedly seem—he asked, il it was not to lead to state interposition, 
by which its advocates meant the extermination ot the American system 
from the domains of South-Carolina, at the peril of her peace, her liberties, 
and of civil war ? Was it not intended as another act in the series of cau¬ 
ses, by which (it the general government should not be frightened from its 
position) they would approximate to consequences so awful ? In remon¬ 
strating, have they not been called on to express indignation at their un¬ 
heeded complaints? And in threatening, would it not be demanded of 
their consistency to execute their vaunting, until a conflict of opposing 
interests, arising in the purest republic in the world, becoming a strife for 
mercenary objects, will finally engender a war for principle, and embitter 
passions, that can only be appeased by extermination on the one side, or 
extinction on the other. And this he said, on a subject on which there 
certainly existed an honest difference of opinion. On an infraction of the 
constitution, certainly apparent to us, who felt its baleful effects, but not 
to those who were benefitted by its operation. Neither so gross, so palpa¬ 
ble, nor so deliberate, but that it escaped the sagacity of a Calhoun and the 
comprehensive intellect of a Lowndes in 1816 , and the acute discrimina¬ 
tion of a Madison in 1828 . With all the lights of experience, and all the 
aidsot contemporaneous exposition—with a hand practised in forming 

and a mind familiar with all the elements of the government_with the 

ability to expound and administer it; this is the gross, palpable, dangerous, 
and deliberate infraction of the constitution, which escaped the observa¬ 
tion of such a man, and which we are called upon to resist with the most 
tremendous engines of state power. He did not wish to be understood 
as according any thing to the constitutionality of the system of protecting 
duties; he considered it as a flagiantand a wanton abuse of the constitution. 
Nor did he wish to be considered as implicitly subscribing his opinions to 
Mr. Madison s, or any other man’s. He was accustomed to judge of the 
constitution, neither by commentaries, expositions, nor other men’s opin- 
lons. He judged ot it by its letter and its context, with a spirit, neither 
to add to, nor abstract from its powers. But to those who, on former occa¬ 
sions, so libeially quoted Mr. Madison as authority for this doctrine of 
state interposition and as a competent tribunal to decide constitutional 
questions, he could now triumphantly reply, that Mr. Madison was the 
best expositor ot his own meaning; and now that his opinions were expli¬ 
citly declared on the side of the question he advocated, it should be no less 
potent with those who had attached so much importance to their supposed 
conformity with their views. 

Mr. R. said, that the gentleman from York, (Mr. Ilill,) who had just pre 


'.[Ml 

ceded him, had entertained the committee with a history and description, 
of parties, whose contentions have agitated the government, from the foun¬ 
dation of the constitution to the present period. As little versed as he 
was in the chronicles of party warfare, he had nothing to object to the his¬ 
tory given by the gentleman. Nor did he feel it necessary to vindicate 
any party, to which, by the nature of his opinions, lie might be supposed 
to be attached. He would rather seek for his justification in the charac¬ 
ter of the times and age in which they lived ; and of which, in imitation ot 
the example of the gentleman, he would attempt a description. He said, 
they lived indeed in an age which the founders ot the republic, in their worst 
apprehensions, could never have anticipated, and which their spirits, it 
they could descend upon the earth, would not recognize, as the emana¬ 
tions of that form of government, which they had done so much to estab¬ 
lish. We had lived, he said, to see our country agitated, and almost over¬ 
whelmed, by the contending billows of parties—we had lived to see out 
government tottering, like a ruined fabric upon its base—we have lived 
to seethe tongues and arms of their descendants, employed to curse, and 
ready to tear up this monument ot their fathers achievements from their 
graves, and contend over the fallen temple of liberty, not to preserve, but 
to destroy it. This powerful revulsion ot feeling to an object once so 
cherished and esteemed, had certainly been produced by strong and aggra¬ 
vated causes. Impious frauds had been committed on the constitution 
salutary principles had been violated—the lawless ambition ot statesmen, 
and the reckless avarice of some states, have plundered our rights, and 
driven the government headlong and furious, into the most extravagant 
and iniquitous excesses. Human nature is impatient ot injuries; and 
those who suffered, too indignant to awaken the justice ot the people, and 
await the effects ot public opinion, rushed at once to a desperate couise, 
denouncing those who joined not in their anathemas against their countiy, 
as cowards and recreants, deriding patriotism as idolatry, and reprobating 
it as treason to love the country ot Washington. He did not claim fot 
himself, or those with whom he was associated, any greater pretensions to 
the character of patriots, than the rest of his fellow-citizens. But when 
they were called traitors for their devotion to their country and then at¬ 
tachment to the union, they were proud of the epithet, and felt like the 
descendants of the rebels of ? 76 —that it was the deed that qualified the 
name, and that even a halter bestowed a glorious death, when associated 
with patriotism. And as to being cowards for deprecating the horrors ot 
disunion and civil war, let it be remembered that the time had not yet 
arrived, to discriminate between the vaunters ot prowess and of patriotism, 
and the achievers of deeds of heroism and of glory. And when that time 
does come, let gentlemen be assured, that they who are most earnest to 
prevent it, will not be found among the recreants from our father s glot) , 
or fugitives from our fathers tombs. We can perish with them, it it needs 
must-be so, amidst the flames of our dwellings,an offering and a sacrifice, 
to atone for the unavenged injuries of the ruthless invader, to an outraged 
country and a desolated home. 

But the gentleman from York, relies upon the efiicacy ot a state veto,or 
interposition to redress our wrongs, and considers it as both an etlectual and 

peaceful remedy. _ 

Whatever measures are attempted by South-Carolina, to resist the law a 


t 53 ] ' 

or change the policy of the federal government, otherwise than bv acting on 
public feeling, must be resolved into state interposition. And however*we 
may presume upon the fears, or the weakness of the federal government, 
(and the whole theory of state interposition is founded upon that supposed 
imbecility); yet all modes of resistance, otherwise than by operating- 
through popular opinion, on the responsible agents of the government 
must terminate in an issue, between the power of a state to onpose, and the 
ability of the government to administer its laws. This must be the final 
issue ot the question; and ii this power ol state interposition, mean any 
thing but the mere influence ofits authority upon the public min d, it should 
be the exercise 01 a power derived (as the gentleman claims it) either asa 
perfect, or a constitutional right. If it were the first, it would be exclusive— 
could be exercised without injury to another, and could be subjected to no 
arbitrament whatever. Now, according to the nature of the compact, a 
pait of the rights of each state, are merged in a common government, for 
common purposes, in which, the principle is conceded, that" they are to be 
contioled by the decision of three-fourths of the states, composing that 
government. We cannot, therefore, be said to enjoy a perfect right, which 
we have subjected to the control of a higher power ; and if it be a consti¬ 
tutional right, it must be by a mode prescribed bv the instrument itself, 
for arresting the evil. And where shall we find it ?—Can we point to it r 
i he gentleman derives it by implication ; but while we so justly declaim 
against construction, let us not use or abuse it for our own convenience. 
Ihe constitution gives supremacy to the government of" its creation, and 
subjects its powers to no other limitations, than what its own provisions 
prescribe. That it is a revolutionary right, we all concur in admitting; 
and will unite too, I hope, m staying its mighty torrent, until the evils 
which are to oe removed, shall become more intolerable, than the devas¬ 
tating effects to be produced. 

In the untried and hazardous course, then, of a state interposing its re¬ 
served and sovereign rights to check the powers, or arrest the usurpations 
i the government, and as it were stepping within the circle ofits tremen¬ 
dous wheel, to arr est its revolutions, or be crushed in its career, it becomes 
necessary to estimate the probability of success, and to understand the 
manner in which it is to be accomplished. That the government is to be 
lightened fiom its position, and to vacillate in its policy, according to the 

0 e tl i mes j Trl ave n ° , nght t() presume- Its measures are the 
lesu ts of fixed and deliberate determinations—-they have been pursued 
anndst ah the por ents of the times—the dangers and" the difficulties were 
before them, and they will be as permanentas the convictions, or delusions, 
nn er which they were established. They cannot, then, be removed by 
the ordinary means of state interposition ; and if this state interposition be 
exercised with a determination to effectuate that object, all our present 
efforts are but intermediate steps to the contest, when the ascendency 
must be determined by the strength of the parties. If South-Carolina 
therefore, interpose her sovereignty, to check the exercise of powers by 
the federal government, presumed tube unconstitutional, and she bases 
her opposition to the tariff, and other unconstitutional laws, upon the 
presumption of a sovereign right to do so, that opposition cannot s on 
short ot any extremity to which the contest may carry it; nothin* but the 
obstinacy or the weakness of t!,c parties can decide short! 


but the sword ; for the very principle contended for, would then become a 
question of sovereignty. And if, now, by this inflexible attitude, we are 
to establish the principle, that South-Caroiina is either to arrest the course 
of the government, or progress by a series of acts to the extreme point of 
the. controversy, what is to slay a conflict ot strength, or prevent the im¬ 
pending combat r Would we demand of the stronger party, concessions 
to our threats, and the sacriflce ot their principles to our opinions ?—Would 
we require of twenty-three states to submit and crouch to the dictation of 
one ? And yet such would necessarily be the issue, unless we suppose 
what is far more improbable—that South-Caroi ina herself would shrink in 
an hour of peril, which her own rashness invoked, or blench at the aspect 
ola danger which she had dared in her anticipations to encounter. No, 
sir! you could not carry the feelings, or the indignation of the people of 
this state, to such a point, and dare to persuade them to the disgraceful 
and discomfiting abandonment of a principle, which their honor would 
become engaged to defend, and their feelings enlisted to sustain. Be the 
issue what it may, South-Caroiina would never make a mark of defiance 
which she dare not sustain—she would never take a stand upon principle 
to betray it at the first approach of danger—she would never vaunt of her 
rights and her prowess to desert the one, or fly from the trial of the other— 
she would never erect her standard to leave it, without a blow in the hands 
of her conquerors—she would end the contest as it began, on principle ; 
and if she could not sustain principle, she would fall with honor, and per¬ 
ish with renown—she would draw the drop of blood and oceans would 
flow—she would strike the blow, and who should count the last. 

This then is the practical illustration of a doctrine, which places a state 
in the attitude of a judicial tribunal construing the rights, and determin¬ 
ing the powers of the federal government— and of course under all the ac¬ 
companying obligations, (paradoxical they are,) of protecting the enjoy¬ 
ment of the one, and restraining the exercise of the other! This is a gov¬ 
ernment without a name, and without a character of which it would form 
ours. Exercising a supremacy over its constituent parts, and yet under 
the control of every one of them—with the sword in one hand and the 
purse in the other, and yet under the subjection of a latent power in the 
states, to suspend the one in the midst ot a battle, and close the other 
against the most imperious requirements of the faith and credit of the na¬ 
tion. And this is the doctrine, and this the state of things, which are said 
to be necessary to the rights of the states-—to aliay jealousies—produce 
harmony and confidence—and of which it is demanded of us to predicate 
our resistance to federal laws. And are jealousies to be allayed, and 
harmony and confidence produced, by attaching an imperial veto to twen¬ 
ty-four discordant parts and conflicting interests. Either those parts 
must become separated or disjoined by frequent collisions, or the greater 
must absorb and consume the minor interests—it must either be the dis¬ 
traction ot a Polish diet—or necessity must justify the corruption which 
barters away public opinion. To suppose that harmony, concert, or union, 
can exist in a government of such a formation, is to presume upon the 
existence of a perfectability, utterly unattainable in morals as in politics, 
and of which our example is any thing but a practical demonstration, 
since discord is produced by the mere presumption of a right in the states, 
(claimed by some and denied by others,) to judge of constitutional inlrac- 





• [ 54 ] j 

lions, and to become not only the arbiter of their own, but of the rights ol 
other states. And while so claimed, is it forgotten, that a doctrine which 
seems so favorable to the authority of the states, by subjecting the opera¬ 
tions of the federal government to its control, must terminate in the sub¬ 
jection of the states to each other? and sometimes of twenty-three states 
to the dictation of one ? Is it forgotten, that the states have severally and 
jointly delegated in trust to the federal government, all powers necessary 
for defence and external communications—in short all powers necessary 
for peace or war; and that under the influence of a state veto or interpo¬ 
sition, the exercise of the powers so delegated, can be arrested at any 
moment of time or in any emergency of the occasion ? Have we forgotten 
that a Carolina convention, although originating from the purer and better 
motives of arresting federal usurpations, would yet be a good example and 
an approved authority, for the mercenary sensibilities of a New England 
convention—suspending the sword of an injured country, uplifted to pro ¬ 
tect her commerce and defend her rights, in the moment of battle and of 
victory ? Yes, sir, this is the state interposition, which we cannot appro¬ 
priate to ourselves, without also committing to the exercise and discretion 
of every other state in the union, which we might use now for purposes 
hallowed and proper—but which may be abused then for treason and 
crime. Let us not then, sir, for the convenience of present objects, open 
a breach in the sacred walls of the constitution, which the discordant hands 
of twenty-four zealous states can never repair—which must widen with 
the progress of time, and through which the spoiler and the usurper will 
follow, not as the imitators of our example to preserve and defend, but 
to devastate and destroy. 

But I would ask, sir, if it be not intended by a convention to engage in 
the defence of a principle, for the maintenance of which, we are to be 
bound to every and any extremity ? I would ask, if it be not contemplated 
through that convention, to test the efficacy of a state veto or interposition, 
to arrest the operations of the government? I ask, if we do not by the 
exercise of that interposition, assume an attitude, that as a single state, 
without the alliance or co-operation of any other, South Carolina can effect 
a change in the policy and measures of the federal government, and by its 
direct interference as a sovereign state control the acts of that govern¬ 
ment, ostensibly created for tiiebenefit of all, and in the exercise of which 
she is entitled to no more than an equal participation ? If these things 
be denied, I would ask, why then urge a resistance that means nothing or 
effects nothing; which would otherwise be intended to yield to obstinacy, 
and succumb to the first exhibition of defiance ? And where now, sir, are 
the peaceful and effectual attributes as a measure of redress, which the 
gentleman has so confidently ascribed to state interposition ? 

But the gentleman says we have nothing to h6pe for from the cupidity of 
the majority, which has oppressed us with these onerous exactions. And 
while I concur with him in deprecating the corruption of the politicians, 
who constitute that majority, 1 cannot identify them with the majority of 
the people ol the United States. I cannot believe in the voluntary de¬ 
basement of the whole people, and entire population of the. eastern and 
western states. I cannot believe that so many states and so many mil¬ 
lion of freemen, would willingly consent to the prostitution of their consti¬ 
tutional rights and the destruction of their chartered liberties. Such a be- 



lief is discordant with the very idea of a republic. They may be in that 
state of delusion from which the wisest of statesmen or the best of patriots 
are not exempt. But if we cannot believe them as a people, capable of a 
voluntary abandonment of all their rights and privileges, we must believe 
that their ears are yet open to truth, their hearts to justice and their 
understandings. Such eloquence as has been employed to excite the feel¬ 
ings or confirm the convictions of our own citizens, would arouse them to 
defend the constitution, as much their charter and their hand as ours. The 
press, if we did not obstruct its circulation by a wanton abuse of those by 
whom we intend it to be read, would awaken them to a sense of their dan¬ 
ger and our wrongs, and press the solemn conviction to their hearts. The 
practical effects of the tariff*, if they are such as we anticipate, will dispel 
their delusion. It is our creed—it is our prediction—that commerce will 
stagnate under its baleful influence—that our flags will disappear from the 
ocean—that our population will become riotous and demoralized—and 
our country under the dominion of capitalists and speculators. Beholding 
these things, the countrymen of Hancock, the descendants of the puritans 
and of the champions of Lexington, would come with purer hands and 
better hearts to minister at the altar of their country. 

But the gentleman has triumphantly pointed our hopes to a convention, 
as a remedy for ev^ry evil, a redress for every wrong, and a balm for every 
infliction. And while those who advocate this expedient, claim a peculiar 
orthodoxy for their opinions that proscribes its opponents as the adherents 
of federalism, let me ask, sir, how long since the state rights and con¬ 
vention parties have been identified ? In 1825, when a distinguished 
member now upon this floor, advocated a reference of our difficulties with 
the general government to a convention, was there a responsive echo to 
the sentiment ? Not one sir. 

In 1828, when the subject was again agitated, how many converts had 
been obtained to the doctrine of the honorable member, who again witli 
renewed efforts and increased abilities, advocated the propriety of an ap¬ 
peal to a convention of the state,—still few, sir, and among those few, 
scarcely any who had been clothed in the panoply of the state rights and 
radicalparty. If the convention and state right party are the same, then 
there is an essential difference between the state right party of this day 


and the radical party of 1825. 

J A convention is an elementary state of society—above all laws—supe- 
' i ior to all constitutions—with the power to create and destroy all political 
‘ associations acting on the people which it represents. For all state pur- 
> poses its powers are ample and plenary : even to tear up our state consti¬ 
tution into shreds—to alter our system of representation—to do,or to effect 
any thing that the sovereign people, in their original capacity, can do. All 
' these, convention may do—because, all these convention can do. l am 
1 sustained, sir, in this definition, by the authority of our late executive, 
! (Stephen D. Miller,) whose opinions^not only derive weight and importance 
from his station and experience; but from his reputation as one of the ablest 
constitutional lawyers of this state, accorded by universal consent. He 
says, emphatically, in his message—“ that a convention is paramount to all 
constitutions. 5 ’ It is true, then, that a convention can abrogate all laws— 
annihilate all constitutions acting on the people it represents. It can 
secede from the union—-separate from the states, and nullify the tariff law 








I 50 j 

in South-Carolina. Tliese are its only effectual expedients; and in this 
elaborate discussion, I have heard no other suggested or proposed. With 
these, therefore, as its specific objects, it can be called for no other purpo¬ 
ses, and those who advocate a convention, must approve the only expedi¬ 
ents to which it can resort, and virtually instruct that convention to nullify 
or secede. If, then, the time has arrived, when South-Carolina must dis¬ 
solve her connections with her sister states, let her retirement be graced 
and dignified by a consistent demeanor, and a candid exposition of her 
intentions. If she must depart, let her state in the spirit of candor and 
sincerity to her sister states, that the compact being onerous, its advanta¬ 
ges unequal, and its burdens oppressive and unjust, that she will retreat 
from the political circle in which they had revolved together, and sway an 
undivided sovereignty over her own dominions. Assuming this right, she 
would dissolve the allegiance of her citizens to the federal government, 
and place them in an attitude to resist, without committing treason to 
their country; and if per chance they haplessly fell beneath the power of 
their foes, on the field of battle, they dare not reproach them as traitors, or 
write the unholy word upon their graves. 

But could South-Carolina dissolve the allegiance of her citizens to the 
federal government, by nullifying its laws ? Certainly not, sir. Nullifi¬ 
cation, as the gentleman’s argument has demonstrated, is not the assertion 
of sovereignty, but resistance to a government, to which, while even in the 
act of hostility, she professes to belong. She would then stand in the 
attitude of a party, violating the conditions of a league, without dissolving 
the league itself, and deemed guilty of treason to the confederacy. If a 
convention could abrogate the tariff’law, in every state, and in every part 
of the United States, then indeed it might be possible to oppose the law, 
without resisting the government, because an abrogated law could not 
be enforced. But a convention of the state could only be called to nullity 
the tariff*law in South-Carolina. South-Carolina would not, by nullifica¬ 
tion, renounce her allegiance to the federal government—the gentleman 
from York, and its advocates, disclaim its tendency to do so; but she ac¬ 
knowledges, in the very act itself, her allegiance to a government, whose 
laws she defies and tramples on. If resistance upon the part of this state, 
could be extended exactly to the point, where force and coercion upon 
the part of the federal government commenced, then, indeed, there might 
be safety; but there would be disgrace in nullification. Could South- 
Carolina be capable ol such conduct; or w ould gentlemen advocate such 
policy? No sir, never. And are we then to suppose, that we should be 
permitted as a peculiar and a favored people—a perfect Israel—to exempt 
ourselves from the operations of a law, which w r e declare to be so grievous 
and intolerable, while every other state in the union must endure its 
effects? No, sir: they would rise at once to imitate our example, or en¬ 
force our obedience. The first they would not attempt, for they disap 
prove it; force would then be the alternative—subjection or disunion, the 
consequence. And where, sir, are the southern states in this contest? 
Are we told that it is not South-Carolina alone, but the moral sentiment 
of all the other southern states, that is arrayed against the abuses of the 

*-*•■*— -> j n re p e Hi n g an d denouncing violations of the constitution, 

w 


we are indeed supported and sustained by the moral reprobation, of all the 

other southern states. But we would nlace ourselves in the advance of 



/ 


[ 57 ]; 

iiiat sentiment—we would become the sole champions of southern rights-— 
we would assume to ourselves the sword, the lance, the helmet, and the 
cuirass- and in this new order of political chilvalry enter the battle lists 
(<) vindicate and achieve a cause, not more peculiarly our own, than that 
cl all the southern states. And why are they laggards in a cause, as 
much their own as ours ? W hy is the inexpressible honour of being fore¬ 
most in tne point of danger, and first in the van of peril, reserved to South 
Carolina. In a scramble for interests would it be so? Would our sym¬ 
pathising friends so generously reserve the first spoils for our hands, or so 
paificularfy await lor the accomplishment ot our purposes and the attain- 
mentof oiu objects. ISosir. ' Let these reflections then speak an instruc¬ 
tive language to us. It we must crusade for southern rights, let it not be 
witn the sympathies only, but with the active co-operation of the southern 
states. 

In this new and untried experiment, the shock of which is to shake our 
government to its very foundations—let us not be the blind agents of an 
inconsiderate or infatuated zeal. By reflection we may loiter on the way 
side, but it is easy hy firmness and perseverance to recover our footsteps— 
we may speed by precipitation, but where there is neither safety nor re- 
ti cat. i he public prints have aroused the feelings of the people on this 
subject—our own expostulations have alarmed their fears, and awakened 
their apprehensions for the preservation of their liberties—we called upon 
them to think, to act, to resolve, and to instruct us, and amidstall that was 
spoken and written to infuriate and to madden them, their patriotic sensi¬ 
bilities revolted between the alternatives of violence done to their coun¬ 
try, and injuries sustained by themselves. They are not with you, and 
you cannot act without them. 

Even the spirit of a Madison is awakened by the excitement of the pre¬ 
sent, as it were from the tomb of former times—and as if in the trying 
difficulties of the moment, and in the warmest aspirations of our hearts, 
we had asked for the inspiration or the prophecy of such a man—and be¬ 
hold his voice lias been heard among us, to warn and to instruct, like the 
appalling hand-writing upon the wall. He kindled the light to illumine 
—let us not convert it to a conflagration to burn and consume our lib¬ 
erties. To such authorities let us accord some deference—and if we must 
err, let it not be by a guilty precipitation. 


[Col. Preston’s Speech should have been inserted next , but not 
being received , the publisher is constrained to leave it out of its pro¬ 
per place and go on with the next in order.] 


THOMAS It. ENGEISH’S SPEECH. 

Mu, Chairman: While gentlemen are meditating upon the nullifying 
-late-right and very eloquent arguments of my friend from Richland, 
will the committee bear with me m making a few remarks upon this all- 
important and vitally interesting question. Until within a day or two past 
i had concluded not to trouble this committee with anv remarks of mine. 

8 


L J 

I have been induced, however, to depart lioni that course by one circum¬ 
stance, which X shall mention directly; meantime let me promise the 
committee, that I do not intend to occupy their time and attention longer 
than twenty or thirty minutes. I rise but for one single definite object, 
and that is, to give expression to what I honestly believe to be the feelings 
and wishes of my constituents. 

My friend and colleague from Sumter, (Col. Richardson,) in his usual 
eloquent manner, lias faithfully made known to this committee, the 
feelings and wishes of those whom he represents. As I represent another 
portion of the district of adverse politics, and as that portion which I 
represent will not suffer in comparison with Clarendon, or indeed anv 
other portion of the state, in point of intelligence, patriotism, moral and 
intellectual worth, I deem it important that they too should be repre¬ 
sented by an exposition of their political tenets. In justice to myself I 
must say that I took no notes from the eloquent arguments of my colleague. 
I will therefore briefly advert but to a single remark which came from 
him during the course ol the debate. My friend argues that if we meet 
in convention, the moment we do so all law is superseded, and that con¬ 
sequently the constitution is endangered. Now sir, I am ready to admit 
that eoinstanti , a convention is got up, its powers as it were by magic rise 
paramount to every thing else, because a convention is nothing more than 
the sovereign people met together, to whom rightfully belongs all power, 
and from whom it emanates whenever indeed it does emanate. But does 
that argue sir, that because the people have all power that they will exer¬ 
cise it to the destruction of my rights and privileges, that they will take 
trom me my hard earned savings, sell me into slavery, or subject my wife 
and children to the galling yoke of tyranny P Does not the moral - sense 
prevent it ? Does not a sense of justice, propriety, and of those duties 
which we owe to one another all go against it. We are the same when 
met together in convention, governed by the same laws, and actuated by 
the same springs to action. But the fears of my friend in regard to the 
constitution appear to me to be also unnecessarily excited.^ Surely he 
must recollect that it is not necessary to call a convention for the purpose 
of altering or amending the constitution. The constitution has pointed 
out a more eligible plan of procedure. But it appears to be proper to 
advert, for a moment, to the difference between the state of South Caro¬ 
lina and the other states. I recollect no other state whose constitution 
may be changed without a convention of the people. This is the case in 
Virginia, which was under the necessity of calling a convention about 
three years ago, tor the purpose of re-modelling their constitution. And 
here 1 would remark, that the framers of our constitution never intended 
when they made provision for the calling of. conventions, that one of the 
objects ot convention should be to change the constitution. 

I regard it as one of the greatest securities that we have* not only for 

the existence but the permanency of our free republican institutions," that 
all those powers not expressly given up to the general government are 
reserved to the states to be exercised by them whenever thev think fit. 
lake away this, and you remove the grand corner stone of the temple of 
our liberties, which has been erected in this western hemisphere at the 
expense of the treasure, and blood, of our glorious fathers and heroes 
»ake away this, and you reduce tins government with ail its 


[ 59 j 

beauties, pet lections anti excellences, to one grand consolidated govern¬ 
ment ill which the siates with all the rights and privileges incident to 
sovereignty, are reduced to the insignificancy of petty dependent provin- 
t es under the immediate direction and control ot the general government. 
It is the caput,principium etfons of our magna charta, the federal consti¬ 
tution : and consequently entitled to our highest regard and most atten¬ 
tive consideration. 

It this clause in our constitution be no unmeaning fallacy, it follows 
that so long as the general government confines itself to its legitimate 
sphere of action, we are bound by an oath, one made and recorded before 
men and angels, by the obligations of a compact or solemn treaty, to yield 
a ready and willing consent thereto. But it also equally follows, that 
whenever it assumes to itself new powers, or claims jurisdiction where ithas 
notoriously never been granted to her, her actings and doings, carry no 
more obligations with them to enforce obedience on the part of the states, 
than the actings and doings of the Dey of Algiers or the Emperor of the 
two Itussias. The truth of my position is by no means impaired by the 
broadness with which I lay it down. I repeat it, whenever therefore, we 
wish to test any legislation of the general government by this rule, we 
need determine but this one thing—whether the power has been given to 
the general government. But here I confess is the difficulty with a great 
many who are at a loss to determine who are the proper judges of infrac¬ 
tions upon the federal constitution ; and indeed this subject alone presents 
a wide and fruitful field for speculation, and one over which my able and 
learned friend from Richland, has travelled and blazed out the way. It 
must then suffice for me to say, that I believe that there can exist no oth¬ 
er umpire or judge, in collisions or differences of opinion, about great fun¬ 
damental constitutional rights between the states and general government, 
than the states themselves. For a sovereign, while he maintains his power, 
to be bound without his consent, is an unmeaning fallacy—it is equally 
so with states. How can a state be sovereign, and yet bound by any tie 
against her consent ? The very idea of sovereignty, excludes every thing 
like compulsion or necessity. 

I do believe that the tariff laws of which we complain are unconstitu¬ 
tional ; and I do believe further, that a large majority of this house, and a 
still more overwhelming majority of the people of South Carolina, coincide 
in opinion with me. 1 hear it responded on all sides, that the laws are 
unconstitutional, and that the obligation of the oath which we have taken 
to protect and defend the constitution of this state and of the United 
States, binds us all to resist it. I fee! glad that there is no other difference 
among us than that in regard to the quo modo and quo cum,t hat we are so far 
together in point of unanimity, as to differ in nothing, save that in regard 
to the time when and the maimer how. Various remedies have been pro¬ 
posed for the redress of our grievances and the removal of our difficulties, 
each claiming to be an effectual catholicon, a cure-all. But the most ap¬ 
proved as well as the safest plan, to set about getting rid of these evils, 
seems to me, is to let theipeople determine for themselves what course is 
most proper to pursue. For it does appear to me, that in the transaction ot 
all grand and vitally interesting matters, the people should as immediate¬ 
ly as the nature of the case will admit of, that is directly in their primary 
meeting, have the agency. If this principle be true, it is applicable to the. 


L >>« .'I 

matter in hand, and consequently entitled to our most attentive conside¬ 
ration. 

There are two things which appear to me to be proper to claim our con¬ 
sideration : 1st. the constitutionality, and 2nd. the expediency of the pro¬ 
posed remedy. Of its constitutionality, I am satisfied when I read that 
whenever two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature shall think fit, a 
convention shall be called. It evidently appears to me, that the wise 
trainers ot our constitution intended to throw as much restraint around 
the Legislature in exercising this power as they possibly could. But 
it by no means follows that they were not convinced of the expedi¬ 
ency, propriety, and absolute necessity of the people’s being called to¬ 
gether in convention, to act and determine upon weighty and solemn mat¬ 
ters, that immediately affected their rights, privileges and sovereign¬ 
ty. Indeed it the wise framers of our constitution had believed that 
conventions tend but to unsettle, ant! to introduce disorder and confusion 
into the complex machinery of governments as some contend, it is 
clear they would have made no provision for the meeting of such a body. 
But they did provide tor the calling together of such a body, and they did 
manifest in doing so that they believed them to be necessary and proper 
upon great and extraordinary occasions. 

We have petitioned and remonstrated until petitions and remonstran¬ 
ces have not had the slightest effect upon an interested majority in Con¬ 
gress. I hey have turned a deat ear to our petitions and remonstrances, 
spurned our reproofs and would have none of our admonitions. We can 
truly appropriate the language of Mr. Jefferson, and say we have not been 
wanting in our attentions to our northern and western brethren. We 
have conjured them by every tie which should indissolubly bind us together. 
We have warned them that a continuance on their part to oppress us b\ 
a load of taxation more onerous and iniquitous than that which is felt byany 
othei peopie Under the sun, may drive us to the last act of desperation and 
cause us like a giant overheated with wine, to declare we will assert and 
we will maintain our rights at all hazards. I)o you call me a disunionistr 
\ ou aie guilty of a mis-nomer. On the contrary I declare that it is the 
v ery love which I have for the union that induces me to take some course 
that will preserve its entirety and integrity. I can almost say that my 
mother taught me to love the union. It certainly entered into the first of 
all my attachments—yes, Mr. Chairman, 1 can distinctly recollect the peri¬ 
od when I believed it almost treasonable to call in question the power and 
prerogatives of the general government; but I thank God that my eyes 
have ever been opened to the perception of my rights and privileges, and 
to the discernment o those which belong to states, free,'sovereign and 
independent, as to all those powers which they have not given up to the 

general government, and which nothing can divest them of save their own 
voluntary act. 

Lheie is a point, Mr. Chairman, at which human nature will undergo a 
reaction, 1 he ebbing and flowing of the tides are not more necessarily 
connected together, than action and reaction. Human nature is capable 
OI endurance to a certain extent; but no further. If we have not vet 

inn.t. deep of the cup of humiliation, unless we check the 

lhos< j 'vJio are administering it to us, we will soon swallow down 
-I.ettiegs. i do not purpose to go into any labored detail, to shew the 


i ei J 


tion oi 


uunousaml withe ring effects of'the tariff* upon this, the fairest portia 
Ai?n°<r ,U ^' t ^ iat has been done most satisfactorily, by Smith, Hayne, 
p ; + ,. lle and Preston, as well as by the whole delegation from the south. 

, jut this 1 wid say, that disguise thyself as thou wilt, under the name of 
™ Amen can system, still thou art the tariff with all thy bitter fruits and 
consequences; and though thousands in this, our otherwise happy country, 
nave been made to feel of thee, thou art no less bitter on that account. 

confess, Mr. Chairman, that 1 have erred and strayed from the point 
under discussion ; but 1 will return by saying, that in view of all these 
eyHsand grievances, we are called upon to determine what shall be done, 
feha 1 we keep up a moral action—-enlighten the public mind, and pour 
* orta in more dolorous and prayerful accents, our grievances and.remon¬ 
strances ? Shall we, as suppliants, beg and pray tor that which is due us 
ecc debito justitiae. The subjects of the veriest despotism on earth can do 
no more than this. No, sir, to remonstrate any longer, is incompatible 
with the claim oi a tree, sovereign, and independent state, for that which 
is her inalienable right. What shall be done? Shall we look into the 
constitution (our polar star, an instrument venerable for its antiquity and 
the moral and intellectual worth of its framers) for direction ? Surely it 
is safe to do so. But why shall we not avail ourselves of the instruction 
and advice which are given us thereby, or rather we will first consider 
why we should. 


1st. I o remove those obstacles which lie in the way, and prevent the 
oper ation of that justice which our northern anil western brethren, might 
be disposed to shew us under other circumstances. It cannot be denied, 
that there is an impression at the north, (for they often take occasion to 
tell.us ot it,) that our grievances and oppressions are all hatched in the 
brain of our noisy politicians, who are looking more closely to self-aggran¬ 
dizement, than to the promotion of the public weal: and further. 
That the few who do deprecate, and who do oppose that course of poli¬ 
cy which they have been pursuing for the last fourteen years, are 
led away by the rant of impolitic and bigotted statesmen. Now, you can 
undeceive those men in no other way, than by calling a convention of the 
people of this state, and manifesting to them, that* our complaints are not 
hollow, and our determination to pursue our legal, constitutional rights, 
not bounded by petitions and remonstrances; and of the importance of 
undeceiving them, I would just say, that you need never expect that they 
will do us that justice which we have long been asking for, until they are 
sensible we are determined to have it. 

Again : I am in favor of a convention, because it will have a tendency 
to concentrate public opinion, i have already stated that various remedies 
have been proposed for the redress of our grievances, and the removal of 
our difficulties; in addition to which I may add, that the law contemplates 
no wrong without a remedy and a tribunal before which this wrong must 
come. Now, what objection can there be against suffering this wrong to 
come before the people in convention? to whom rightfully belongs all 
power, and from whom it emanates whenever indeed it does emanate ? 
Will the power be denied to the people to determine for themselves, what 
course is most proper to be pursued ? or will .their ability to determine cor¬ 
rectly, be called in question ? What is a convention ? Let those who are 
opposed to it give the definition : and they will render good service to the 


atise which 1 advocate. Let them say, it is a proposition to cail together 
the sovereign people, to discuss, adjudicate, and finally determine upon 
such questions only as might be dangerously settled by representatives or 
public servants. 

Again: I am in favor of a convention, because I conceive it to be the 
least dangerous measure of any we can adopt under existing circumstan¬ 
ces ; and this conviction is forcibly brought home to me, from the reflection 
that no person will be excluded from a seat there. Our judges may sit 
there—our clergy may sit there—(and perhaps it would be well for a few 
of the men of God to exercise a correcting influence over our councils)— 
our old grey-headed men—men who have children and grand-children— 
men of.extensive interest in the prosperity and welfare of' the country. 1 
say, when I consider who will constitute this convention—and when 1 con¬ 
sider further, that all the light, experience and wisdom, will again be 
checked by the instructions of the people—I say, when I consider these 
checks, and these barriers against error, i cannot but feel confident in my 
own mind, that it is an experiment the least dangerous, and consequently 
most advisable. 

Again: I am fora convention, because it will enable our delegation in 
Congress to prosecute our claims, and address themselves more success¬ 
fully to a returning sense of justice on the part of our oppressors. Our 
delegation in Congress have done already for us, every tiling that men 
placed in their situation could do. 'They have manfully fought our 
battles—they have caused the halls of Congress to resound with the 
manly and dignified strains ot Carolinian eloquence; but all to no purpose: 
which has caused their heads to hang down, and their knees to become 
taint and tremulous. What has hitherto supported them ? It was our 
countenance and protection. But this lias proved unsuccessful, and we 
must try something else. Let that be a resolution on the part of this Le¬ 
gislature, that a convention should be called after the discontinuance of 
another session of Congress,provided those obnoxious laws are not repeal¬ 
ed, and provided there is no disposition manifested to relax the odious 
system of the tariff, and of internal improvements. 

And, again: the spirit of eloquence will resuscitate from her slumbers, 
truth acce derate her progress, and speedy justice be restored us. Our 
■delegation in Congress will rise up to a man and say—now, gentlemen, of 
the north and of the west, we appear again before you, asking for that jus¬ 
tice which you have long withheld from us. Look to South-Carolina.— 
Drive her not to desperation. Butii you are determined to prove blind 
and recreant to the best policy and the true interests of your country, be 
warned that the people ot South-Carolina, in convention, will do that jus¬ 
tice to themselves which they have longbeen petitioning for at your hands. 
This, in my humble opinion, will have a wonderful influence in causing 
them properly to investigate the subject, and mayhap eventuate in dispos¬ 
ing them to restore to us our long lost privileges*and liberties. 

Again : I am for a convention, because it will enable Gen’l Jackson to 
aid us more effectually than he could do were we to leave the matter wholly 
to him. I am aware that this very argument has been made use of by 
those who oppose the call of a convention; but it does appear to me to an¬ 
swer the purpose for which I intend it, very well. I do believe, that nothing 
contributed so much towards inducing Gend Jackson to put his veto upon 








| ' t «3 J 

tiip Maysviile Hoad lliil, as the* spirited remonstrances of the south. Indeed 
itis said, that Gen 1 Jackson himself confessed that our protests caused him 
to give to the subject an additional share of study and investigation. Now, 
if we discontinue our opposition, or, which is the same thing, hush into 
silence our complaints, (tor I do hold that either we must meet in conven¬ 
tion, and continue a constitutional opposition, or we must be silent and 
give over the point, since we cannot petition any longer,) we suffer our 
enemies to pounce down upon Gen’l Jackson, and obtain a victory over 
him. It is out of the question for Jackson alone to effectuate a recovery 
ot our rights: He needs our co-operation, and we should give it to him. 

Again : I am for a convention, because the effect of waiting will subjec t 
the southern states to the payment of a large portion of the public debt: a 
great portion of which South-Carolina unconstitutionally pays. This ar¬ 


gument needs no illustration. 


Again, and lastly, I am for a convention, because I can perceive no 
reasonable ground to hope that our difficulties will be removed or out- 
grievances redressed without such a step being taken on our part. And 
here, Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to confess that nothing would give me 
greater pleasure, than to be able to lead the minds of others through the 
same process which my own lias undergone, and bring them to the same 
conclusion; for t should then congratulate myself in no ordinary degree 
as having contributed to the establishment of the liberty and independence 
of my country. But this I-feel my inability to do, and must consequently 
substitute intention for fact. I have come to this conclusion, first, because 
General Jackson himself is against us. In the Maysviile veto itself he 
says, a moderate tariff of protection shall always receive from him a firm 
but temperate support; which I can by no means give in to. Tariff for 
purposes of revenue, to defray the expenses ot the civil and military lists, 
and to extinguish the public debt. When revenue ends, protection begins; 
these constitute the grand leading doctrines of that class of politicians to 
which I belong, and whom I believe to be politically orthodox. But it is 
said that the inflexible determination of General Jackson to pay off the 
public debt, and destroy the odious system of Internal Improvements, 
will remedy the evils of which we complain. But I do contend that this 
only lulls us to sleep, and causes our eyes to be shut to the existence of a 
still greater evil, viz: the continuance of the tariff. When the public 
debt is paid and the system of internal improvement abandoned, what then 
is to be done with the money in the treasury? It is to be distributed, sir, 
among the several states according to their delegation in Congress: that 
is, Ohio, which pays little or no duty, will get sixteen parts, and South 
Carolina which pays enormously, will get eleven. 

Thus, Mr. Chairman, have I accomplished in my very feeble and im¬ 
perfect manner, the object stated when I first rose. These, I honestly 
believe to be the feelings and wishes of my constituents, and I know 
them to be my own convictions. In conclusion, let me sav, that Clare- 
mont, with her representatives, go for Convention. 


J.S. PRESSLEY’S SPEECH. 


Mr. Chairman —Were I possessed of the eloquence oi those who ha ve 
preceded mein this discussion, or had I any assurance that the sentiments 
1 am about to advance, were in entire accordance with the views of a ma¬ 
jority of my fellow citizens, then, perhaps, I might flatter myself, that 
there would be accorded to me a patient auditory. But, while I regret 
that it is my misfortune to differ with many of my fellow-citizens, yet, at 
the same time, I felicitate myself that we five in an age and under a gov¬ 
ernment, where are tolerated liberty of conscience, and freedom of discus¬ 
sion. I felicitate myself, that we live not in an age, where it is the order 
of the day, to accord an implicit acquiescence to the dogmas of the school¬ 
men. 1 hat, in matters of opinion, we are under no imperative necessity 
of bowing in undisputed submission to the opinions of a majority. That 
tne dogmas of the schoolmen, or the categories ot Aristotle, do not chal¬ 
lenge any control over our minds, in bringing us to conclusions on subjects 
of legitimate inquiry. That we recognize in any man, or set of men, the 
right to dictate to us in matters of opinion. We are free to accord a de¬ 
cent respect to the opinions of great and good men ; but at the same time, 
we are not disposed implicitly to acquiesce in any opinion, or doctrine, 
merely because it challenges for itself the sanction of public opinion. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a resolution on your table, proposing that this 
Legislature do call a convention of the people, for the purpose of taking 
into consideration certain acts of Congress, commonly called the tariff 
law s. Now, sir, as this proposes the adoption ot a measure, pregnant with 
important results, it is surely the dictate of wisdom to inquire whether the 
evils complained of are of such magnitude as to authorize the adoption of 
such a mcasuie. "W e could suppose a state of things, which, in our opin¬ 
ion, might justify the adoption of the measures proposed, and that state of 

things is this: It the tariff be a palpable infraction of the constitution-_if 

it be intolerably oppressive, and beyond the reach of the hope of a 
icmedy. lo each Oi. these topics, respectively, is the attention of the 
committee respectfully invited. And here permit me to sav, that X have 
listened, with pleasure, to the arguments of every gentleman, on what side 
soe^ci, and numbly tiust that the same courtesy may be accorded to the 
humble individual who now addresses the committee, although it be his 
misfortune to be in the minority. 

I now propose to inquire, whether the tariff be unconstitutional, or not * 

I am aware that it has been asserted and reiterated, times without number, 
that it is. But tins, I take it, is a petitio principii ; taking for granted 
the thing to be proved. Now, it is a proposition to which every one must 
assent: that assertion is one thing—that proof is another. In opposition 
to the assertion, that the protection ol manufactures is unconstitutional I 
unqualifiedly assert, that it is constitutional. And if I cannot substanti¬ 
ate t.us position by testimony the most unequivocal, from the express 
lerms ol the constitution itself, and the cotemporaneous and continued 
exposition of that instrument by those who framed it, and those who have 
’>ccn charged with the administration ot the government from its first or¬ 
ganization down to the present period, then will I consent to forfeit mv 
claim to prove any tiling. 







L 115 j 

Union, are: II it be unconstitutional^ if it be repugnant, either to the letter 
or the spirit of that instrument, “ The Congress shall have power tolay and 
collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises; to pay the debts,” &c. The word 
excises is followed by a semicolon, which goes to disprove the construction, 
that has been sometimes given to this clause. It has been contended, that 
the particle to, in this, must be taken to signify, for the purpose of. 

Now, I am free to confess, that in the grammatical construction of some 
sentences, the preposition to is susceptible of this meaning; but, it does 
not necessarily follow that it is to be taken in this sense here. The fact, 
that the word excises is followed by a semicolon, goes very far in estab¬ 
lishing the reverse of this; and that the words, “to pay tlie debts,” is a 
substantive power, and instead of reading it, according to the construction 
of some, “ The Congress shall have power, to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
imposts, and excises,/or the purpose of paying the debts,” it appears to 
me, to be a more natural construction, to supply the ellipsis, and read, 
“The Congress shall have power, to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, 
and excises”—“The Congress shall have power, to pay the debts,” &c. It 
the former construction be contended for, viz: that impost duties are laid 
for the exclusive purpose of paying the debts, it appears to me to intimate 
that this is the only source of revenue from which the extinguishment ol 
the national debts is to accrue, whereas it. is well known there are other 
sources. To what purpose, I would ask, are the moneys applied, arising 
from the sale of public lands, from the post-office department, from the 
sinking fund, and dividends arising from shares in bank stock held by the 
United States? 

Again: “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce” &c. But, 
here it will be asked, if Congress under the power to regulate, possess 
the power to destroy commerce? Now, this interrogatory, appears to 
me, to proceed upon the supposition that the word regulate, signifies to 
promote, whereas it has no such meaning. Its signification is to adjust by 
rule; and this might be done by restricting, as well as promoting com¬ 
merce. , 

I think, I have established beyond controversy, that the protection ot 

manufactures is not a violation of the letter of the constitution.. 

But it has been said, “that it is a violation of the constitution in its 
spirit.” Now, I v/ould ask, how are We to arrive at the ascertainment ol 
the spirit of the constitution, if it be not by the contemporaneous and 
continued exposition of it, by those who framed it, and by those who have 
directed the administration of the government from its first organization, 
to the present time ? If this be not the way sanctioned by reason, then 1 

know of none. . 

What then, are the arguments in favor of the protection ot manufactures 

deducible from this source ? The preamble of the very second act, that 
Congress passed under the authority of the constitution, recites thus, 
“ Whereas it is necessary, for the support of government, for the discharge 
ol the debts of the United State's, and the encouragement and protection of 
manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandizes. 

But, it is said, that it. was proposed in the convention to give Congress 
the power to protect manufactures, and that it was rejected. ISow I am 
free to confess, that it was proposed in the convention to protect manufac- 
t m res by pecuniary bounties. And hence it has been inferred, t.iat because 


- [,66 J 

the proposition to encourage manufactures by pecuniary bounties was re¬ 
jected, it is therefore unconstitutional to protect manufactures by any 
mode whatever. Fish, flesh, vegetables and drinks, all contribute to the 
nutriment of the human system; but where is the individual who will 
maintain that these are ail the same species ? Yet it would be no less illogical 
to maintain this proposition than that it was unconstitutional to protect 
manufactures, because the proposition to encourage them by pecuniary 
bounties was rejected. J 1 

Alexander Hamilton in his report on manufactures, enumerates eleven 
different modes of protecting them. He intimates that some doubts existed 
in i elation to the constitutionality of protecting them by pecuniary boun¬ 
ties; but he never once insinuates that there existed any doubts as to the 
constitutionality of the other ten modes. 

Again: VVashington in his message to Congress, December 7th, 1776 
“Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their atten¬ 
tion to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much 
consequence not to ensure a continuance of their efforts in every wav 
which shall appear eligible.” Jefferson, in adverting to the effects of the 
embargo, says, “The situation into which we have thus been forced has 
impelled us to apply a portion of our industry and capital to internal 
manufactures and improvements. The extent of this conversion is dailv 
increasing, and little doubt remains, that the establishments formed and 
forining will under the auspices of cheaper materials and subsistence 
the fieedoto of labor from taxation with us, and of protecting duties and pro¬ 
hibitions become permanent.” Madison holds a similar language in his 
message to Congress, May 23d, 1809, he says, “It will be worthy at the 
time of their just and provident care, to make such further alterations in 
he laws as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of 
manuhicture, winch have been recently instituted, or extended by the 
audabie exertions of our citizens.” Monroe, speaking of the encourage¬ 
ment of manufactures, says, "Under this impression, I recommend 0 a 
review of the tanfffor the purpose of affording such additional protection 
to those aitides which we are prepared to manufacture, or which are 

cTunVyT 7 C ° nneCted WUhthe defenceand independence of S 

In exact accordance with the foregoing, are some fifteen or twentv 

other passages which are at hand ; but tlmt I may not detain the comm ' 
tee I shall omit the quotation of them. ' comrmt- 

I shall next advert to the debates of the first Congress under the 

stitution,exhibiting sentiments in perfect corrpsnondSr,^^ , -<i a L con ~ 
ding extracts. Mr. Madison “ moved to ay Tn fmpost of e It 7 *7“*- 
all beer imported: he did not think tl iYvvon dltol eI g h t cents on 
hoped it would be such an encouragement as to inifure ti lllono P° but 
to take deep root in every state in M^L * "dM 

ject to this mode of encouraging manufactures ami u • • , no * 0}_ 

bining the two objects in onfbifi: by C ° m ' 

existed for both the one and the other.” P oht,cal necessity 

Mr. Wadsworth “By moderating the duties wp ^ • 
and give that encouragement to manufactures which is intended le ! en - lie ’ 
\ ar language is held by several other Gentlemen xW • Mac r ^ Sm ,V 

Ames, Fitzsimons, Hartley, White, Boudinot. Sinnicks^n 


1 67 ] 


' \ 


Jiut, 1 shall not now consume the time of the committee in reading them 

all. 

I now pass on to a quotation from Mr. M’Duffie, in relation to the 
power in question. In One of the People, after quoting the powers 
couched in the constitution, “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts 
and excises”—“to declare war,” &c. he goes on to say,that “these powers 
are possessed in the most general and unlimited terms.” &c. 

I hold in my hand an essay, the production of the individual who pre¬ 
sides over the literary institution of this place. It is, I am free to confess, 
a most lucid and resistless argument in favor ot protecting manufactures. 

But, lest I should trespass on the patience of the committee, I shall in¬ 
vite their attention to but one other quotation on this topic, and that is 
from the speech of our distinguished fellow-citizen, the Vice-President of 
the United States, in 1816, on Mr. Randolph’s motion to strike out a clause 
of the bill. It is at once a luminous and cogent argument in favor of the 
encouragement of manufactures. He urges, with characteristic ability, 
the necessity of extending to the manufacturers, such “protection as would 
put them beyond the reach of contingency.” 

Now, what is it, I would ask, more or less than a reflection on the char¬ 
acter of those illustrious individuals, to say, that they, when under a 
solemn oath, to “ preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, have 
incurred a palpable infraction of that instrument?” 

It is said, that the tariff is intolerably oppressive. Now,Mr. Chairman, 
if, after proper inquiry, facts be found to support this allegation, then 
we cannot resist the conclusion. But it, on the other hand, it should be 
found to be unsupported by facts, then we must resist it. Now, how stands 
the case r Let us discard mere speculative theory, and appeal to facts.— 
One fact is worth a thousand quibbles. We were told that this system 
would prove ruinous in its operation, and intolerably oppressive. And 
this opinion appeared to be chiefly based upon the assumption, that it 
would destroy the price of cotton—that it would annihilate our commerce, 
produce a diminution in the revenue, and effect a great rise in the price 
of goods. Now, when we bring these speculations in collision with facts, 
we will find that not one of them is verified. I will not speak with posi¬ 
tive certainty in relation to our commercial interests. But, in the absence 
of proof, that they are materially crippled, I must be excused for withhold¬ 
ing mv assent. ’ . 

As respects cotton, it has been at a better price since the passing of the 
tariff of ’28, than it was the three preceding years. I readily admit, that 
it has experienced a great diminution in price since the year 1817'. But, 
if this can be rationally accounted for independently of the tariff, then it 
will conclusively follow, that it is not attributable to that cause. 1 his is, 
doubtless, the effect of over production. We know, that it is a principle 
pervading the whole commercial world, that in proportion as any com¬ 
modity increases in quantity, it diminishes in price. Now, let us apply 
this rule to cotton ; and here let me ask the attention ol tne committee, 
while 1 advert to the increase of the quantity of cotton in the United 
States during forty years. The quantity raised in pounds in tne year 
1790, was 100,000/in 1800, 17,000,000; in 1804, 35,000,000; in 1817, 
85,000,000; in 1822, 144,000,000; in 1827, 294,300,115. Mere we have 
an exhibit of the vast increase of this article. And it is worthy ol atten 


tiOli, that the period in which this increase lias advanced with the nreatesi 
lapiditv, is, from lS52£t till 182, ; and this is the very time in which it 
diminished most rapidly in price. 

As a further proof, that the tariff has not reduced the price of cotton, 
permit me to avert to the opinion of Mr. M’Duffie in his last speech in 
Congress, in which 1 understand him as fairly giving up the point. But 
why should the tariff reduce the price of cotton ? Great Britain has not 
adopted any retaliatory measure. 

Again: it is generally supposed that England is opposed to our tariff; 
but, 11 it had a direct tendency to lower the price of cotton, it appears to me 
that it would go very much to diminish their opposition to it. 

Another view which appears to my mind conclusive on this point, is, 

that our cotton commands as high a price at Liverpool, as the cotton of 
any other nation. 

If our commerce has experienced any material injury, I am not aware 
ol it. I here is one fact which ought not to be overlooked; and that is, 
that a portion ol our shipping is employed in exporting domestic manufac- 
tures. And as relates to the revenue—so far from its diminishing it has 
actually increased. ° 

But we were told goods would rise. Now, for a complete refutation of 
I ns : it is only necessary to appeal to the experience of every man. I 
diall not consume the time of the committee, by attempting a detailed 
account of all the various items that have actually undergone a diminution 
,n puce. Let two or three sufhce. I can now purchase cloth for 50 • 
three years ago, the same quality would have sold for §10 00. Three 

ffT/ro S ° ? 10 * he country, from 14 to 12 1-2 cents: they can now 
be bought for 9 cents. In the year 1822, manufactories ofcotton bagging 

^ n h entU ^’L ei ' e 111 a very languishing condition, and cotton baggin "rose 
to from 40 to 50 cents per yard. In 1823, they were revived, and "in a 

hp°h! f 1 ?! , i t « 18 e i e to from 27 to 30 cents per yard, and can now 
had foi 15 cents in Augusta. 1 have adverted to these items out of 

competition!"' 8ht be adduced as a P ractical illustration of the effects of 

We are told this system operates unequally. But when we recollect 
that our cotton is protected by an imposition of a duty of 3 cents a nound 

T ; and . that ‘here is'a duty on hempVd Ctl,e 

benefit: of the planting interest j and that our commercial interests ere 
piotected by a law ot Congress, requiring American vessels to nav a ton 

X&SitiSS!3X*&7&2,7*-- 

as a fore,gn vessel, of the same 4e, and m!!lu,,/th e S am e , J„^er oi 
entries would pay six hundred! I„ attending to°these facts t ”vil b, 
lound to be less unequal, than is generally supposed. ’ ‘ ll be 

within the limits of the state? Tho r and lender it inoperative 

clearly, in our opinion! made out, by lS'Z\o abrieKl "* ^ 
theory of the government. We findf tha?*'^he 


• • .1 B? i 

revolutionary war, that the colonies, impelled by a sense ol‘ common dan 
ger and common defence, entered into articles of “ confederation and per¬ 
petual anion” These articles of confederation conferred on Congress 
but few powers. Under them. Congress had no power to make commer¬ 
cial treaties that would be binding on the states. Each state claimed for 
itself the right of violating the conditions of treaties. The Congress pos¬ 
sessed no power to enact laws operating upon the individual citizen. 
Their powers were circumscribed to the passing of laws to make requisi¬ 
tions upon the states, as states. These requisitions were often disregard¬ 
ed, and the Congress was not invested with any coercive power to enforce 
obedience. Hence they seemed destined to experience all the withering 
effects of an exhausted treasury aud a languishing commerce. It occur¬ 
red to the minds of some of our leading statesmen, that it would be abso¬ 
lutely necessary so to alter and amend the articles of confederation as to 
confer enlarged powers upon Congress. For this purpose five of the states 
sent commissioners to Annapolis to deliberate on this matter. The result 
of their deliberations was to recommend to all the states the expediency 
of sending delegates to a general convention, for the purpose of making 
such amendments to the articles of confederation as would, render them 
adequate to the exigencies of the government. In compliance with this 
recommendation, all the then states, except Rhode-Island, sent delegates 
to Philadelphia in 1787. After taking into consideration the object ol 
their mission, they came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to 
remodel the government, and instead of circumscribing their operations 
by the limits of their commission and amending the articles ol confedera¬ 
tion, they abolished them altogether, and framed a new constitution, 
greatly enlarging the sphere of operations of the general government, 
giving them the power to regulate commerce, and to enact laws operating 
directly upon the individual citizen. The states ceded away to thegene- 
ral government a great many of the functions antecedently exercised by 
the'states, at the same time placing a prohibition upon the exercise ol 
them by the states individually. Anterior to the adoption of this consti¬ 
tution, by the states, they were not bound by its provisions. But so soon 
as they, by their voluntary act, adopted it, they were unquestionably 
bound by the stipulations of the compact. 

Thus it must be apparent to every one, that in discarding the articles of 
confederation, and adopting the constitution, our government underwent 
a radical change in its fundamental principles. It was an express stipu¬ 
lation of this compact, that, “this constitution and laws made in pursu¬ 
ance thereof, &c. shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the 
constitution, or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding.’-' 
Thus we see the states voluntarily stripping themselves of many of the 
most important attributes of sovereignty. Let it then not be contended 
that the states under the constitution, are absolutely sovereign—that they 
stand in the same relation to each other, as independent nations. The 
cases are not analogous. Hid ever England, b ranee and Russia, entci into, 
formal compact by a cession of certain specified powers ? We know they 
are subject to the laws of nations, which have grow T n up lrotn immemoiial 
usage. But they are individually known as independent nations—-It is not 
so with South-Carolina. r l he cabinets of Europe know the United States; 
but as for South-Carolina, as such, they know her not. Here, then, wc see 


t TP J 

the futility of attempting to run the parallel; and at the same time, the 
utter fallacy of contending for this right existing in the states individually 
as a constitutional right. 

But will we be told that this is one of the reserved rights r I ask you not 
for the reserved rights—I know they are not enumerated. But one thing 
1 know, that right and obligation are reciprocal. If I have a right to a piece 
of property, there is a corresponding obligation on others to abstain from 
it. If a state have a right, (I speak of a perfect right) to nullify an act of 
Congress, there must be a corresponding obligation on Congress to refrain 
from enforcing it. 

But the resolutions of the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures are great¬ 
ly relied on, in support of the existence of tins right. Yet if we take 
Madison’s resolutions with his explanation, they will not be found to cor¬ 
roborate this doctrine. What is the language of Madison in his resolu- 
lions ? He says the case must not be obscure or doubtful. It must be a dan¬ 
gerous t deliberate and palpable infraction of the compact. I think I have 
shown conclusively, that it is not a palpable violation of the constitution. 
Did Virginia call a convention, or nullify ? Did Kentucky call a conven¬ 
tion, or nullify? Let the history of the times answer. 

If any tiling more were wanting to demonstrate the position, that a state 
lias no constitutional right to nullify a law or act of Congress, that part 
of the constitution already noticed, would, we conceive be final and con¬ 
clusive. “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which 
shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall 
be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 
law of the land ; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; and 
any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwith¬ 
standing.” 

Another item. What then is the true question before us? I appre¬ 
hend it to be, is the law constitutional ? and that is a question for the su¬ 
preme court. That this is the rightful umpire, I need only appeal to the 
constitution itself. “The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law 
and equity arising under the constitution, the laws of the United States, 
and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all 
cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls ; to all ca¬ 
ses oi admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the 
United States shall be a party;” &c. Again : “ In all cases affecting am¬ 
bassadors and other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a 
state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction.” 

Luther Martin, who was a member of the convention that framed the 
constitution, in giving an exposition of the principles of the constitution, 
to the Legislature oi Maryland, distinctly recognized in the supreme 
court this power. And when the Legislature ot Pennsylvania, dissatis¬ 
fied with a law of the general government, transmitted resolutions to Vir¬ 
ginia, soliciting the concurrence of the latter state in appointing an im¬ 
partial tribunal, to decide on controversies between the federal judiciary 
\ and a state, Virginia returned for answer, that there was one already ap¬ 
pointed, and that tribunal was the supreme court. This position is fur¬ 
ther corroborated by the 39th and 78th; and other numbers of the Federalist, 
shall unequivocally demonstrate, that the federal judiciary was intended 
as the umpire. And I do aver, without the least apprehension of success- 


[ -1 j 

iul contradiction, that from the adoption of the constitution till the present 
time, the supreme court has adjudicated questions of a similar character. 
And I feel tl tie utmost confidence in asserting, that there is not a lawyer 
within the sound of my voice, that will so far jeopard his reputation as 
a jurist, as to deny this : sometimes deciding acts of Congress constition- 
al and sometimes unconstitutional : and yet it is our painful lot, frequently 
to hear this dignified tribunal stigmatized as a “ mere creature of a crea¬ 
ture .” 

Mr. Chairman I have done: and in conclusion I would say, that the 
signs of the times are well calculated to awaken apprehensions for the 
permanency and safety of the union. We have England pointed to as a 
more natural a!lv than our northern brethren. But let us not forget that 
instructive lesson which the history of the ancient Britons imparts. When 
they were harrassed by their northern neighbors the Piets and Scots, they 
called in the Saxons to their succour. The latter having succeeded in re¬ 
pelling these invaders of the Britons, and seeing their (the Britons) de¬ 
fenceless situation, took possession, and settled themselves in the greater 
part of the south of Britain. Let us then beware ot those rocks on which 
others have slipt, and profit by their example—let us not be deaf to the 
admonitions of history—let us beware of the machinations of factious 
demagogues, and in the language of the farewell address of Washington, 
“ frown indignantly on the very first dawning of any attempt to separate 
one portion of the union from the rest. 5 ’ Yes, Greece had her Alexan¬ 
der, Rome her Ceesar, England her Cromwell, France her Bonaparte, and 
America—may Heaven in mercy avert it—America may have her Burrs, 


A. P. BUTLER’S SPEECH. 

Mr. B utler, having been alluded tobv his friend from Richland, as the 
author of the resolutions under consideration, and his friend from Charles¬ 
ton, who opened the debate, having made some strictures upon the pro¬ 
priety and precise character of these resolutions, said, he hoped he might 
be permitted to make a few remarks, by way of reply and explanation, 
before he entered upon the main subject of debate. While he would not 
shrink from any of the responsibility of the resolutions, he was not dispo¬ 
sed to take more credit to himself in regard to them, than he deserved. 
It is true he submitted them to the committee that reported them to the 
house, but he was not entitled to the exclusive credit of originating and 
preparing them. They were agreed upon by his friend from St. Bartho¬ 
lomew, (Mr. Smith) and himself, jointly. His friend, with his habitual 
notions of propriety, suggested that extracts from Mr. Jefferson and Mr. 
Madison’s resolutions of’98 and 99, should be made the preamble to, and 
basis of the two last resolutions, which were conclusions from them; 
and which Mr. B. said he suggested and insisted upon, as proper to be 
acted upon by the Legislature. Mr. B. said he could not see any thing in 
the resolutions calculated to offend the pride of any Carolinian. If the 
principles they avow are correct, he was satisfied; and he thought not 


f* 



[ ra ] 

tnc loss of them because they were presented in the language of those 
who organized and understood the constitution. Indeed, they were offer¬ 
ed, designedly in the language of Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson, because 
any attempt to change the phraseology, would only have impaired their 
torce, and weakened their authority. These resolutions have passed the 
ordeal of trial, and have been sanctioned by the verdict of time and the 
apprpbat.on.of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen of this country. 
We have hoisted an old flag to be sure, but a proud one ; one that is asso- 
ciated with triumph, and the glory of other days. The proudest standard 
ol the Roman army was that which bore the eagles of the legion. The 
soldiers worshipped it and swore by it, and they were never so unanimous, 
or roused to a-higher sense of glory, or excited to more daring acts of 

n h ?- n the ^ saw them ex P 0Sed in the hour of danger* These 
3L Mr V?*/ a ^Hiding to the resolutions) are the eagles of the republican 
p.a tj. liefeai ed, irom the strong current of feeling which was prevailing 
m favo 1 of federal power, they were in danger; and that it would require 
ail the patriotism and firmness of the republican ranks to sustain and 
vindicate them. Out of this house, (Mr. 13. said he was glad he had not 

thTlUn? ? a,ge m n e m house ) thosc vvho adv °cated the principles of 
the leso utions on the table, were branded as rebels and traitors. P If he 

xebeHkm dfTI^treason and rebellion, he wished it to be the treason and 
lebellion of rhomas Jefferson and James Madison. He wished it to be 
uat treason and rebellion which were committed in maintaining and vindi¬ 
cating his rights and liberty against unauthorized power; he wished it to 
oe that treason and rebellion which were committed in preserving from 
v iolation the constitution, as it came from the hands of its makers against 

r;:a wd ^ ^ ^ swss 

In the primitive days of the republic, when federal power had not 

thoilzed exactions the n n <! ° n; f ™; ikeit cri -ninai to question its unau- 
"“Vi?"?’ th ? P" nc, P lcs 0* the report under consideration were 
a arded as oitnodox doctrines, and as the true expositions of the fedpn 1 
constitution. I he Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were not as some 
would make them, useless exhibitions of rhetoric, written out’by mere 

d diSpI r aj; b i Ut ^ were * n ^ r °ddced\nto,grave 

nracticaend,Th« J SU £f st J on °} Wlse aad virtuous statesmen, for 
practical ends. I hey were introduced and adopted for the purnose of 

t c PP st1tc1 S te’ aS r, tin f. the ri 8' hts > vindicating thrower oi 

biz 

other government attempting to <4rcbe unauSiz^owe,- ° fany 


lu the language of the 4th resolution, “ That the several states compos¬ 
ing the United States of America, are not united upon the principles of 
unlimited submission to the general government, but by a compact under 
the style and title of the government of the United States and amend¬ 
ments thereto, they constituted a government for special purposes; dele¬ 
gated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each stale 
to itself the residuary mass of right, to their own self government; and 
that whenever the general government assumes imdelegated powers, its 
acts are authoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each 
state acceded as a state and an integral party. That the government 
t reated by this compact was not made the exclusive and final judge of the 
powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and 
not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other 
cases of a compact between parties having no common judge, each party 
has a right to judge for itself as well of infractions, as the mode and mea¬ 
sure of redress.” 

Language cannot be more explicit—explanation cannot give it greater 
definition. The design and intention of this resolution is obvious. It is 
in vain to change its meaning by any ingenuity or substitution of phrase. 
Their own language, the origin, and cotemporaneous history of these reso¬ 
lutions, point to the same meaning—they were originally suggested by 
Mr. Jefferson, and were introduced into the Legislatures of Virginia and 
Kentucky, by Mr. Madison and Mr. Nicholas, all of them prominent re¬ 
publicans at that time, and opposed to the principles of administering the 
federal government, as contended for by Gen. Hamilton, Mr. Adams, and 
others, who were in power, and the most distinguished federalists of their 
time. They were in exact accordance with the views of Mr. Jefferson, 
who was from the origin of the government, the able, untiring, and con¬ 
sistent advocate of the rights of the states and constitutional liberty. A 
man whose name will be venerated as long as the title deed of our inde¬ 
pendence and freedom, which he wrote, remains to teach posterity lessons 
of liberty. When the federal constitution was organizing and adopted, 
Mr. Jefferson was in Europe, an anxious, and from his distance from the 
scene of those engaged, a comparatively impartial spectator ot what wa$ 
o-oino- on. When he left the country, he left it as thirteen separate sove¬ 
reign states, united for a few common purposes. The war of the revolu¬ 
tion had been achieved in the name and for these thirteen states. They 
were bound under an honorary obligation, and in good faith, to execute and 
perfect all treaties, and to pay off the expenses of the war, but in all other 
respects they were separate. Whether they would yield up, by the new 
constitution, which they were about to form, all their scpaiate existence, 
was a question of deep importance. That it was the design of some that 
they should, is certain ; but Mr. Jefferson thought that they ought not, 
and by the terms of the new constitution, he saw they bad not done so,—- 
On his arrival in this country, when the federal constitution was about 
O^ointr into operation, and when he was about to assume upon himself some 
portion ot its administration, he found that some ot the inosL.prominent 
statesmen in the government entertained very different views from him¬ 
self. Among those, were General Hamilton and Mi. Adams——the one 
Secretary of the Treasury, and the other 0 ice-Prcsidcnt. General Ham- 
yeo-aiHlcd the new constitution as only containing the seminal 

if! 


f 74 ] - 

principle of a government, which might he cultivated according to the 
views of those who administer it. He was in favor of a strong govern¬ 
ment, exercising substantive powers on the entire people of the United 
States. The strength which it wanted in its organization, lie thought 
ought to be imparted to it by its administration. It w’as as strong in its 
origin and organization, as the people, whose enthusiasm for liberty, not 
having subsided, would receive. Honestly entertaining these views, he 
sought, upon all occasions, to enlarge its powers. His model of a perfect 
government, was the British constitution, as it was administered, with all 
its patronage, and incident corruption ; and he did not hesitate to express 
his opinion, that ours ought to approximate it as nearly as possible. Mr. 
Adams believed that the British constitution, without its corruption, was 
tiie best government on earth. General H. thought the British govern¬ 
ment, with its corruption, was the best, and that without it would be 
impracticable. They were both patriots, and entertained their views 
honestly. When the American people were about to embark upon an 
ocean of untried experiment, that there should be a great difference of 
opinion was to be expected; and if there was a diflfereuce of opinion in the 
adoption of the constitution, the same difference might be expected in its 
administration. 

No government can be, at once, made perfect. Its defects must be 
remedied by time and experience, which dictate the wisest of all legisla¬ 
tion. All governments that have ever existed, are the accretions of time. 
There are periods in the history of every government, when principles 
kindred must be engrafted into it. The British government is the 
growth of many ages—-latent principles which inhered in and belonged 
to it, have been developed at different times. The spirit of liberty per¬ 
vaded it more than any other government of the old world, and it has 
been cultivated to a higher degree than in any other country except our 
owui. It was a very different government in the different periods of its 
history. 

Yet in all these periods, you can see vestages of the same constitution, 
but under very different modifications; and in its practical operation' 
jiot to be recognized as the same. I his is true ot all governments.— 
Melancholy experience has taught us, that it is true of ours. The prece¬ 
dent of yesterday is the prescription of to-day. The bias it receives 
from those administering it will long characterize it. General Hamilton, 
who was a man profoundly conversant with the conduct of human affairs,' 
knew that powers (gradually to be sure) could be assumed by the o-overn- 
ment, that were not originally intended. After it was once adopted, it 
could carry with it its own sanctions. Its adoption might be opposed 
with more success than its administration. In other words, a Govern¬ 
ment with limited powers in its adoption, might be made to have all 
power in its administration. Hence his disposition to make it a national 
consolidated government, over one undivided empire. Mr. Jefferson was 
astonished at the views of these politicians, and with his characteristic 
confidence and boldness, promptly and constantly opposed them. His 
ideas were, that a country so widely differing in its local interest and 
aptitude for different pursuits, should be governed by a government of a 
federal character, where the substantive and habitual power should reside 
;n t.ie different parts. That the general government of these separate 




IO j. 


parts, should hav;e a lew limited, but necessary powers, in which ail hail 
a common interest. Hence, lie always maintained, that the less power 
was exercised by the federal government, and more by the state govern¬ 
ments, the better. He regarded the federal government as a derivative 
agency, emenating from the states, with such powers as were necessary 
to manage the external relations of the country. As it regards foreign 
powers,the states are united as one nation; and for the purpose of car¬ 
rying on and managing the extra territorial relations of the country, 
Congress has ample power. It has power to declare war, to regulate 
commerce, to make treaties, and to raise revenue to pay the debts of the 
nation, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare, as 
they are defined and indicated by the constitution. But when Congress 
attempts to exercise the internal government of the country, affecting fre¬ 
quently the adverse interests of the different parts, it disregards and 
defeats the intention of its institution. Mr. Jefferson saw that Congress 
was making encroachments, from the commencement, upon the state 
governments, that would ultimately not only jeopardise their existence, 
but the liberties of the people. He was always jealous ot this central 
power, believing that those who administered it, were too much disposed 
to enlarge its powers, contrary to the design and intention of those who 
made it, and in violation of the soundest dictates ot practical wisdom. 
The only barriers that were interposed by the constitution, or rather to 
be deduced from the organization of the constitution, were to be found in 
the state governments. Of these he was a bold and able friend. With 
these views of the government, lie recommended, and in fact drafted the 
Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. 'I hey were intended distinctly to 
oppose and arrest unauthorized federal legislation. They were introdu¬ 
ced to arrest, within the limits of Virginia and Kentucky, the operations 
of the alien and sedition laws that were passed when Mr. Adams’ admin¬ 
istration was in the full tide of its power, and when nearly every depart¬ 
ment of the general government was prostituted to subserve its unrighte¬ 
ous purposes. The same objections were made to these resolutions at 
that time, by the apologists of federal power, that are made by those who 

oppose them now. . _ , , , , 

It was said then, that they would, in the practical enforcement, lead to 

civil war and disunion. The debates in the Massachusetts Legislature, 
are commentaries upon their true character, as well as the grounds upon 
which they were opposed. They were opposed and assailed by eveiy 
federal state in the union, with great bitterness and violence. But i 
spite of opposition, the republicans went on and sustained them. He 
revolution of 1800, when Mr. Jefferson went into power, turned upon the 
doctrines of these resolutions. Success has imparted to them its sanction 
and authority. Mr. B. said, that the resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky 
ouoht to be regarded as conclusive authority. The authors o. tiiem were 
the architects of the constitution. They understood every part o it, and 

their luminous explanation cannot but be satisfactory to those who look 

at it, with a disposition to understand and preserve its true character : It 
is in vain to attempt to torture those resolutions into the meaning atti mu¬ 
ted to them by Mr. Clay, in one of his late speeches. He was the first 
who had the hardihood to give to them a different meaning from what was 
uniformly associated with them from the time of their adoption. Mi. 



'AcbsiCv, \\iio is certainly a limn ot talents, nod distinguished for his 
adroitness in debate, boldly met and combatted their doctrines, but did 
not attempt to avoid them by a false construction. The same uniform 
construction had been given to these resolutions, from the time they 
wei e published until Mr. Clay’s late speech, and Mr. Madison’s late letter 
to the editor of the ^North American Review. 

At M ^V B ;- Sa5d , ,ifhe con J ectured rightly, the coincidence of Mr. Clay’s and 
Mr. Madison s explanation, was the result of previous conference and 
understanding. Mr. Clay’s opinion was the result of explanations, which 
he had probably extracted from Mr. Madison. This is more than likely, 
as Mr. Madison had been written to by others on the subject, and had 
given a similar opinion. It is certain that Mr. Madison’s late explana¬ 
tions are directly in conflict with the obvious purport and design of his 
ieso u ions. In 1/99, Mr. Madison refers to a mode of redress in cases 
ol palpable violations of the constitution, as resulting to the state sove¬ 
reign les, rom the^ nature ol their relations to the federal government. 
Ihese are his words: “ It is a plain principle, founded in common sense, 
and illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of com¬ 
pacts, that when resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority 
ot the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, whether 
the bargain made by the constitution, has been preserved or violated.” 
In his late letter he maintains that the Supreme Court is the rightful tri¬ 
bunal to decide all controversies between the states and general govern- 
ment By his resolutions lie has established land marks of constitutional 

aie T| 0t t0 Hi effaC - d bj an J plausible explanation or ingenious 
distinctions. They will remain as imperishable memorials of bis own 

fame, and it is to be hoped, as eternal guards of his country’s liberty.— 

moZin Z GS f re < solutions he Preferred the suggestions of perilous 
11le , cou »s el s ol security and quietude. Honest apprehension 
may controll him now; with the kindness of parental feeling he prefer, 
that posterity should rather enjoy, in peace and quietude, sSch rights as 
they have, than peril any thing to assert and maintain rights to which 
they are entitled by enforcing his principles. But he must^ecollect, that 
n his better days, he has taught them lessons of liberty which they cannot 

^hp e v ga, f + V V ,C ,; h ’ S T ° T : Vn bnght exam P Ie animates them to vindicate, 
fbey pi efer the gallant Ulysses to the cautious and timid Mentor. Far 

Whntir! Ml i B ‘ fr0 ™ I 111 *’. t0 throw any reproach on Mr. Madison.— 
Tyha^ he has done entitles him to the ceaseless gratitude and admintinn 

«l his country. When Manlius was accused in the latter davs of his life 

by the Roman people, for some delinquency, in actingcontrary to the pro’ 

cepts and practice ot his youth, the only defence he made was to noint to 

inost^ngerouien'emy ofids™ountry? nl,S ' ^ m ° Bt d#rin * i,Wader and 

lately do. They are separate and independent of each and „fiL .1 i 
government, in all respects in which thSj have not debated power toX 
e era government. As far as power has been delegate'll, the P fedcral <*ov- 




1 ■ < I 

eminent is sovereign. As far as the states have not delegated pywer, 
they are sovereign and supreme in the exercise of government within their 
own limits. Under the confederation. Congress could pass ordinances, 
and prescribe measures, but it was the province of the states, as indepen¬ 
dent sovereignties, to enforce them. The states were then, only under 
the obligation of honor and good faith, bound to carry into effect the sug¬ 
gestion of Congress. Since the adoption of the federal constitution. Congress 
can enforce such measures as it has power to pass. But where power has not 
been delegated. Congress is as impotent now, as before the adoption of the 
constitution, and the states as sovereign. Whensoever Congress trans¬ 
cends the limits of its authority, its acts arc no m-orc obligatory upon the 
states, than the acts of the states, if they transcend their limits, are bind¬ 
ing. u pon the federal government. By the partition of power both have 
their bounds, which they cannot pass. It is admitted that Congress has. 
no power to pass laws to punish libel, or to send our free negroes to Libe¬ 
ria ; and yet Congress lias done the first, and looking at the indications of 
the future, may do the other. But would such acts be obligatory on the 
states? Because Congress has certain conceded power, is it any reason 
that any power it might take would, on that account, be the more binding 
upon the states? Would not such an exercise of power be void within 
the states ? And would they not have a right to judge and declare it 
such ? If there is no tribunal provided by the parties, they certainly 
would. For instance, for the argument—suppose the states had not con¬ 
ceded the power to Congress to declare war, but reserved to themselves 
the right to contribute money and men, as they might choose, at the time 
of the emergency; and that Congress had assumed the power to declare 
war,and even to send the officers into the states to levy money and men 
to carry it on ; would not the states have a right to resist the enforcement 
of the law? And, again, suppose the states had reserved every other 
right to themselves, but the power to declare war, and that Congress hav¬ 
ing this single power, were to assume others, and attempt to enforce them 
in the states, would not the states have a right to guard their exclusive 
jurisdictions-against the operation of such laws, as much as if they had 
been passed by England and France. Because Congress has one power 
and exercises ten, is it any reason nine should be obligatory? Usurpation 
and oppression are the same, no matter from whence they proceed. The 
states must have the power to preserve their sovereignty, if they have any, 
or it is not worthy the possession. Bid the states, when they adopted the 
federal constitution, by delegating a few specific but important powers to 
Congress, thereby abandon their entire sovereignty. If so, they have no 
right to complain. But, by nothing they did, when the constitution was 
adopted, can such an inference be authorized. Commissioners met at 
Anappolis, and recommended a convention of the states to amend the arti¬ 
cles of confederation, which was a mere league of honor and good faith. 
Delegates met at Philadelphia and formed the constitution, which was as 
vet not at all obligatory on the states. It was sent to Congress, and by 
that body recommended to the states for their adoption. Thus far the 
states were the parties. The people in each state in their sovereign capa¬ 
city, met and adopted the constitution. But mind, it was adoped by the 
people of each state, separately. Virginia, North-Carolina, So'uth-Carolina, 
Georgia, and the other states agreed to it in convention in their separate. 





independent, and -sovereign capacities. A majority oi the states, jointly, 
could not adopt it. The states,as thirteen sovereign constituents, organ¬ 
ized a government, enforcible by its own powers on the people of each 
state, as far as power was delegated; and all power not delegated, was 
reserved to the people of each state. The constitution of the United 
States is a special and limited power of attorney from the people of each 
state. Its agents, to make their acts obligatory upon their principles, must 
confine themselves within the strict limits of their derivative authority. 
It is certainly, always, a grave, and frequently a difficult question to de¬ 
cide, whether Congress, which exercises a primary and powerful agency 
under the constitution, has transcended its limits or not: This is a prece¬ 
dent question, which must be settled before the principles of Mr. Madison 
and Mr. Jefferson’s resolutions are applicable to our situation. 

South-Carolina, and five other states, have solemnly decided that Con¬ 
gress has transcended its limits of authority, in passing laws for the ex¬ 
press purpose of protectingdomestic manufactures. But as South-Carolina 
is about to take a more decided attitude, and come to some responsible 


decision, it is proper that her decisions heretofore made, should be tho¬ 
roughly reviewed and investigated—more particularly, as the question 
has been seriously made and ably discussed during this debate. 

The complaints of South-Carolina against the prohibitory system are 
not of yesterday’s origin—they have been long, deliberately and solemnly 
made and repeated. But it is said, bv the honorable gentleman from St. 
Philips and St. Michaels, (Mr. Huger) that she ought not to complain, as 
she has, in a great measure contributed to originate and foster this policy 
herself. If this charge be true, she has certainly acted as the foolish hen, 
that at times hatches vipers,by settingupon strange eggs ? It is a policy that 
is entirely alien to her interests, and destructive of her rights and liberties ; 
and those who have been nurtured by it, with the spirit and ingratitude oi 
the Cocatrice, are ready to sting the bosom that gave them life. 

But the charge is not true. It will be found, upon examination, that a 
temporary act of generosity, honorable to its authors, has been converted 
into a concession of a right. The statesmen of South-Carolina at no time 
ever conceded the substantive power to the federal government to protect 
domestic manufactures. In 1816, when it was proposed to diminish the 
taxes and duties which had been imposed to support the war, with a gen¬ 
erosity that has always characterized the south, her members did agree to 
regulate them so as incidentally to sustain fora while (the act terminating 
by its limitation in three years) the manufacturers that had grown up 
during the war, and which had been serviceable to the country, as well 
as profitable to the owners. Mr. Lowndes, who was then in Congress, 
did not regard it as conceding the power subsequently claimed. For in 
1819, when the distinct right to protect domestic manufactures was claim¬ 
ed, when memorials were sent from the manufacturers, claiming an 
increase of duties for protection, and when the policy of prohibition was 
to be commenced, Mr. Lowndes raised his voice against it. Being pro¬ 
foundly acquainted with the various interests of the country, he saw that 
the south must become a victim to the policy. That the protection of one 
branch of industry must be at the expense of others—if manufactories 
were protected, it must be by burthens imposed on commerce and agricul¬ 
ture, the peculiar pursuits of his constituents. 4s a faithful sentinel, lie 






I 

1 L 79 ] 

. | gave the alarm to the south, and he never uttered the voice of warning/ 
) but when there was some danger. He was not driven to his decisions by 
; party excitement or sectional prejudice; but he came to them as a wise 
[ statesman, by patient research and profound reflection. In 1820, memo- 
, rials were sent on to Congress from the city of Charleston, and from the 
( district which Mr. B. saitl he had the honor to represent, discussing the 
doctrines of the tariff and appealing to the justice and magnanimity of 
their northern brethren : these were the only two places that did send on 
v memorials. But these memorials, and the complaints of the south, were 
disregarded. The north had the power, and their memorials were attend- 
,, ed to, while ours were treated with indifference. In spite of the light of 
discussion, and the eloquence and exertions of our members in Congress, 
the friends of northern monopoly went on ; and by the delusions of the 
west, and the avarice of the north, the tariff of 1824 passed. The people of 
, this state, as with one feeling, were excited to the highest degree of alarm 
e and indignation. Without the dictation of any politicians, the insinua¬ 
tion now made, they met nearly in every district in the state, and passed 
resolutions and sent on memorials to Congress. In 1828, the Legislature 
passed resolutions on the subject. Mr. 13. said lie was opposed to these 
resolutions, because he thought it was not the province of the Legislature 
to adopt them, but of the people, who could finally act upon the resolu¬ 
tions, and who would commit themselves as far as they intended to act; 
and the people, when informed, would act with becoming spirit and patri¬ 
otism. The Legislature might precipitate the state into an attitude, which 
the people would not be bound to sustain. He believed, too, that the reso- 
’ lutions were introduced to subserve the ends of a party without any ulti- 
, mate purpose. That many who were most forward in getting up these 
, resolutions would be the lirst to shrink from maintaining them, in the 
time of trial—and this was proved to be a melancholy truth : while some 
have proved true, many have faultered and shrunk from the consequences. 

I Mr. B. said that he would confess that, at that time, he had a generous 
confidence in the counsels of the nation, and entertained hopes that the 
tariff would be repealed. He believed it was constitutional, in the tech¬ 
nical sense of the word ; and as far as it is only cognizable by the courts, 
he believes so yet. He regarded it as an abuse ot power, that would be 
remedied by the operations of the government itself. Mr. B. said he had 
always voted against resolutions by the Legislature, unless for some defi¬ 
nite and practical end. In 1828, his hopes deserted him, anti he voted for 
j a convention. By the acts of this year, he was satisfied all hopes ot re- 
1 dress from Congress were vain. He awoke from his confidence, only, in 
’ the language of the gallant hero of Black Stocks, “to curse the illusion. 

1 Since that time he was in favor of the states taking some decided attitude, 

! to assert and maintain her rights. 

By the measures she has taken, she stands responsibly committed to 
maintain the doctrines of state sovereignty. She cannot recede but in dis¬ 
grace. A state should move cautiously, but should always be determined 
and prepared to maintain every inch ot its ground. Her own consistency, 
her honor, her dignity and her most vital interests require South Carolina 
to go on, if she is right. If she is right she cannot fail; and it she is wrong, 
she has gone too far already. If right, onward is the word, if wrong, let 
her acknowledge it, and recede. If the laws complained of are constitu 



t so j . 

tional, she has been wrong, if they are unconstitutional, oppressive, and 
dangerous, she is right in what she has done, and should fear no conse¬ 
quences. It is right to resist unconstitutional oppressions, no matter 
xvhat may be the consequences. 

Are the laws passed expressly for the protection of domestic manufac¬ 
tories constitutional ? If we have given our bond for a pound of llesh, we 
must pay it; for we know we are in the hands of Shylock, who insists up¬ 
on its strict exaction. But we insist upon the strict meaning of the bond. 
As far a3 our money is demanded for revenue, let us pay it, as far as it is 
for the protection of domestic manfactures, it is our duty to refuse it. 

These laws purport to be for revenue; when it was acknowledged at 
the time of their enactment that there was more revenue than was sufficient 
to pay the public debt and meet the exigencies of government. They are 
disguised under false pretexts. They purport to be for one purpose, when 
they are intended for another. “ The hand is the hand of Esau, but the 
voice is the voice of Jacob.” A court cannot reach their design ; as it is 
not their province to enter into the motives and objects of legislation : its 
motto is ita estleoc scripta. If the act were stript of its fraudulent disguises, 
a court might decide upon its validity—and it would be bound to decide, 
that no such power was in the constitution or intended to be in it. But be¬ 
cause a court cannot examine and determine upon the true character of these 
laws, does it follow that one of the original parties, and existing constitu¬ 
ents of government cannot? If the states cannot do this, then is their 
sovereignty but a name. This right cannot be denied, without striking at 
the very existence of a confederated republic. It is a right inestimable, 
and not to be relinquished by the states. Assuming then the right of a 
state to make the investigation, the next inquiry is, for what purpose were 
the highduties upon foreign commerce imposed,by theacts of 1824 and ’28? 
Not for revenue to pay the public debt, because the duties already imposed 
were more than sufficient for that—not for the purpose of defraying the 
expenses of a war, for we were in a profound peace—not for the purpose 
of commercial relation, or to carry into effect any treaty, or to provide for 
the common defence; there were no complaints on these subjects. High 
taxes are imposed, when there were no demand for them for supporting 
any ends of the government. Why were those high duties, then imposed ? 
.Let northern avarice and western thrift, answer this question. Let the 
memorials of the manufactories, whinning for protection, answer it. Let 
the following extract of the report of the committee on manfactories, in 
1827, answer the question. “ That duties on imports are not levied for 
the purpose of revenue, but for the protection of national industry, against 
foreign competition; hence they cannot and ought not to be repealed.” 
“The tariff and internal improvements form one system.” This is the 
due into the labarinth of fraud and combination. The west was interest¬ 
ed in internal improvements, and the northern and middle states in manu¬ 
factories ; and united they formed the principal partners of the American 
system, the profits of which they enjoy, and the burthens of which must 
be borne by the south. Too disinterested and honest, she was above 
participating in the plunder of unauthorized power, and in the end, is to 
be made the victim upon which “ambition is to build up its empire, and 
avarice is to seek its hidden treasures.” 

* hese acts were passed, expressly to protect domestic manufactures— 


t 



f 81 ] 

ami now, sir. Let us.examine the authority of Congress to pass such law*: 
No such express power can be found in the constitution—and it is not to 
be found within the scope of powers delegated to the government. By the 
constitution, Congress has power to raise revenue, to pay the public debt* 
and provide for the common defence and general welfare—to declare war 
•—to regulate commerce—to make treaties—to regulate the currency, and 
to establish post roads, to disseminate intelligence to the people. It is 
obvious that the government was instituted for external purposes. To 
these ends, the enumerated powers were given—and as long as the gov¬ 
ernment confines itself within them, it answers the ends of its institution. 
Every part has a common interest in the exercise of these powers. Doe3 
Congress declare war against a foreign nation ? She has a right to our blood 
and treasure to maintain it. Does Congress adopt any measure to regu¬ 
late commerce P It is our duty to submit to all its privations, and to sup¬ 
port it. Does Congress make treaties ? It is our duty to support them 
in good faith; and so of any other legitimate exercise of power; or of the 
fair and honest means to carry them into effect—where the end is fairly 
constitutional, let us not withhold the liberal means to it. The general 
government was intended for external purposes and extraordinary emer-* 
gencies, to which the states, singly, were not competent. Mr. Madison in 
his speech upon the adoption of the federal government, characterizes the 
government thus : “ The powers of the general government relate to ex¬ 
ternal objects, and are few, but the power of the states relate to those 
great objects which immediately concern the prosperity ot the people. 
Let us observe also, that the powers of the general government are those 
which will be exercised only in time of war, while those of the state gov-* 
ernments will be exercised in time of peace. But I hope the time ot war 
will be little compared with the time of peace. I could not complete the 
view which ought to be taken of the subject, without this remark, that the. 
powers vested in the proposed government, are not so much an augmenta¬ 
tion of the authority of the general government, as a change rendered ne¬ 
cessary for giving efficacy to those that were vested in it before.” Now- 
sir, is the regulation of the domestic industry an external power, or an in¬ 
ternal power? Is it not an exercise of power regulating the internal con¬ 
cerns of the country ? It is so; and without disguise, its authors justify it 
as necessary and proper to their interests. Experience has shewn that 
sucii a power was wisely withheld from Congress. The exercise of this 
power will always, as it has done, produce discord and sectional jealousy. 
But as far as authority goes, we have it in abundance, that Congress has 
no power to protect domestic manufactures. Mr. Madison in the debate 
on the fishery bill, in 1792, meets the question, and in so many words de¬ 
nies the right of Congress to protect any one branch of industry by act. 
But to put the matter at rest, such a power was proposed and expressly re¬ 
jected in the convention which framed the constitution. Those wise men 
saw the danger and probable tendency of such a measure, and properly 
withheld it. A majority of representatives in Congress have done, what 
could not have been originally done but by a vote of three-fourths of the 
states. Mr. B. said, that his honorable friend from St. Philips and St. Mi¬ 
chaels, admitted that such a power had been proposed and rejected. But 
he contended that as all other nations had the pouter to regulate and pro 
A iV:t manufactures. Much 


power belonge 
1 ! 


d to the federal government and 




was implied in the power to regulate commerce. Now the power to regu¬ 
late commerce was given expressly, to preserve, improve, and defend, 
the foreign commerce, which was then the most profitable employ' 
ment of the states, all of which were on the ocean, having a common inter¬ 
est, and being identified by common feeling. They were the old thirteen 
states that knew and loved each other. The acts of 1824 and ’28 were 
passed directly in contravention of the spirit of this power. They were 
passed to protect interests entirely alien to,'and destructive of foreign 
commerce: interests of newly added sisters, that, like Lear’s daughters, 
threaten to degrade and destroy the parent. By these acts, commerce is 
curtailed and piohibited. But it is said that they were passed for com- 
meicial retaliation on Great Britain, to countervail her corn laws. It is 
the last tiling that the manufacturers would desire, that England would re¬ 
peal her corn laws. A greater calamity could not befal them ; as in that 
country provisions would be more abundant and consequently labor cheap¬ 
er; which would enable the British manufacturers to undersell the Ameri¬ 
can manufacturers—the very thing they wish to avoid. The truth is, these 
laws were not passed to regulate commerce, as contemplated by the con¬ 
stitution, but to protect domestic manufactures, as not contemplated by 
the constitution. ^ - - \ r> l 


I he gentleman from Abbeville (Mr. Pressley,) contends for the power up- 
ou a new gi ound, and certainly upon a very safe and strong ground, if he 
can successfully maintain it. He says, “to lay and collect taxes, duties, im¬ 
posts and excises, is a distinct, substantive power, pvovided, these words 
aie sepaiated from ‘ to pay the debts’ &c.by a semicolon ; and that by an 
elipsis, ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and o-ene- 
ral welfare,’ is another substantive power.” This is attaching an impor¬ 
tance to a semicolon, and giving a latitude to an elipsis, of rather an 
alarming character. It is making our constitutional liberties depend on 
toe punctuation oi a printer, and the capricious conceit of a grammarian. 
hut it seems that every one relies on his own trade to defend the citv* 
i he currier with leather, the carpenter with wood, the blacksmith with 
iron, the schoolmaster with grammer. A semicolon and an elipsis are 
certainly potent agents, as used by the gentleman, and with them, lie can 
no doubt defend his position. He seems to attach as much importance to 
grammar as a certain Dominie, who was so much afraid of violating the 
rules of ins favorite study, that in his last breath, he guarded his words 
oy saymg “idle, or am dying;” grammarians not having determined 
which is the most proper. In the utterance of these words, in the Latir 
language, morior , vet mortuus sum, he went off. 

The common and certainly the strongest ground, upon which the power 
to protect manufactories rests, is that it is incident to the power to raise 
and collect revenue. All revenue laws will, and ought incidentally to 
protect manuiactones as faras they can be protected under laws honestly 
for revenue, it is we 1 enough. No one can be opposed to manufactories 
ifthey succeed as other empJoyments do. If they are profitable thev 
wil flourish—they ought to stand upon the same footing with other pursuits 
Ifthey can succeed under the protection of laws passed for honest and 
constitutional ends, it is very desirable. But were the high duties imposed 
by the laws oi 1824 and ’28 intended for revenue? The fact is denied 
by the committee of manufactures. a, well *> the truth nfthc case. Before. 


33 


*the laws alluded to were passed, the existing duties were more than was 
sufficient for the demands of revenue. Suppose 20 per cent, upon im¬ 
posts, was more than sufficient for revenue, anti 50 per cent was imposed 
in addition, which would be the incident and which the principle. The 
20 per cent, was constitutional, and as far as it could be arranged for the 
purpose, manufactures might be protected. But the 50 percent, which 
was not imposed for revenue, but expressly for protection, is unconstitu¬ 
tional. It cannot be and is not pretended, that an increase of duties was 
required to pay the public debt, for there are now, and were before these 
laws, more than was necessary for that purpose ; so much so that a pro¬ 
position is now suggested to return to the people the surplus revenue ; 
and if this is done according to the plan suggested, it will consummate this 
stupendous scheme of fraud and imposition, intended by the restrictive 
system. For every dollar South Carolina pays into the treasury, she 
will not receive one-fourth—while Ohio, that pays comparatively noth¬ 
ing into the treasury, will be made rich, confirming .her own dec¬ 
laration, that the only interest she has in the union, is the approba¬ 
tion of the national treasury. She has numercial strength, and has 
been, on that account, the peculiar favorite ot government bounties, 
while South Carolina that pays the money into the treasury, only knows 
the government by its exactions and injustice. The constitutionality o ; 
the system cannot be defended—it is regarded as constitutional, only by 
those who enjoy its bounties. And now sir, said Mr. B. what are its op¬ 
erations on this section of the union r 

Those who enjoy its benefits, and those who bear its burthens, have 
long since answered this question. Who contend for the system? those 
states that have manufactures, and those states, that take the money 
which its injustice exacts. I say take, because it is little less than plun¬ 
der and robbery. Who complain of the system? those states that are 
engaged in agriculture and commerce, and whose staples constitute more 
than” wo-thirds of the exports, by which commercial exchanges are made 
for the whole union—Neither is mistaken, those who bear, feel then 
burthens; and those who receive the benefits, prosper in their enjoyment. 
If those states that have manufactures and which receive the benefits 
of this system, were required to pay the duties; would they do itr 
Is it not justice they should do itr But no, unless some othei s>tc 
tions paid the duties, they would not want the system. And wno 
do pay the duties? Mr. 13. said he again repeated, let a nort.iem 
writer answer, who says, that when the American system, ot which 
the tariff is the pioneer, shall be perfect, it will throw all the bum 
thens of the government on the slave-holding states.^ it will pei manen \ 
fix a tax upon slave labor. That the present duties jire nothing but a 
drop in the bucket, compared to what the manufacturers demand and will 
have. The experience of a few years, Mr. B. said, he feared, would con¬ 
firm the melancholy truth of these remarks. The disadvantages to bout.i 
Carolina of the money which has been taken away by this system, cannot 
be calculated. A system resembling, but more intolerable t.ian the bed 
of Procustes, because its effects are not at once seen, and its victims aie 
reconciled to it by its own silent and secret operation. If the people knew 
at once its design and effects, they would not submit to it tor a moment. 
Its tendency is to destroy the freedom of commerce, and consequently 


H-f j 


credit, and to drive every one to iivo noon his acre of ground, milk hi- 
cow, and clothe himself with the wool of his sheep—and this is mistaken 
for prosperity, it is that prosperity found in the quietude of the slave, 
thathas been secretly and ignorantly driven from the pursuit of his choice. 
The right of choice is liberty—and sir, said Mr. B. a right he did not 
wish to be driven from, he did not wish to live under legislative dictation 
of his interests. If the money which is unjustly taken away from South 
Carolina had remained in circulation, it would have given her some por¬ 
tion of that prosperity which is enjoyed by the northern states—the sour¬ 
ces and means of wealth are here. The valuable staples of the country 
grow and are cultivated here, yet their proceeds are not allowed to remain ; 
but a less favored portion of the country by nature, takes them, and while 
they are growing rich, we are growing poor. We are not allowed to sell 
and buy at the markets we choose, but we pay high taxes, (none of which 
are returned to us,) to enhance the property and build up markets for the 
benefit of others. If the consumer pays the tax as contended, the northern 
monopolist receives more than an equivalent for what he pays, by the en¬ 
hanced value of his property, while the planter at the south receives 
nothing in return, hut occasionally contempt for his complaints. The 40 
per cent, which he pays, where does it go? To the government, to enable 
it to oppress him, and to enable the manufacturers to cheap him, by selling 
their goods at enhanced prices. The people here are perfectly unrequi¬ 
ted for the burthens imposed upon them by government. They are 

gradually sinking under them, and must ultimately go down in ruin._ 

“ Our little barque is sinking, while we poor mates stand on the d ving deck 
and hear the surges threat.”" 

The grave question now presents itself, what shall we do? Shall we 
submit? Shall we submit to a law that we consider unconstitutional, and 
which we know to be unjust, oppressive and dangerous to our liberties ? 
If the law can properly be thus characterized, arc we not slaves, if we are 
bound to submit to itr Sir f rancis Seymour,in the celebrated parliament 
that first questioned the arbitrary and encroaching prerogative of the 
Stuarts, in speaking of the King’s right to ship-money, said ‘‘that he was 
a bad subject who was not ready today down his life for his king in the 
exercise of his rightful authority: but that he was not only a bad subject, 
but a slave, who suffered his property to be taken from him without his 
consent, and contrary to the laws of the kingdom.” Mr. B. said that 
he was not a good citizen who was not ready at any moment to lay down 
his life for the union, and to support the government in the exercise of 
any ot its legitimate and delegated powers, but if he was satisfied that the 
government had usurped power which oppressed him, he was a slave, if 
forced to submit to it. 


Mr. B. said he had not learned the lessons of submission. He could not 
lead them in the conduct and examples ofa gallant ancestry, in every page 
of whose history, from the settlement of the colony to this time, was to be 
found the right and duty of resisting unauthorized power.—He could not 
l ead them upon the tomb-stones of Gadsden, Laurens and Rutledge, the 
cithers of the republic. Living in a state that was the theatre ofa revolu • 
ion, in which the right of resistance to oppression was consecrated : a 
state in which there was scarcely a bush that was not stained, or a stream 
that was not crimsoned by the blood of men contending for their liberty ; 


/ 


[ j 


lie couid not brook the idea of her submitting to a system, that must tie- 
grade and ruin her. There is scarcely any people that has borne more and 
complained less. We have been ten years complaining, and submitting 
to our wrongs. Such a resignation is to be praised, because it was found¬ 
ed in generous confidence. In the language of Gen. Sumter, on this very 
subject, “it is not my design to exaggerate the wrongs of our state, or 
praise its resignation in supporting them. This resignation would be dire 
necessity, if the evil were inevitable : but if the evil can be avoided, it 
would be alike destitute of courage and dignity.” The cause of liberty 
never runs smooth. It is acquired by peri!, and must be preserved by 
vigilance and firmness. Supine indifference and confident security are 
inconsistent with its permanent existence. Those who have been in the 
van of the great contests to obtain and preserve it, have had to contend 
with difficulty, and to encounter toil and hazard. It is the natural dispo¬ 
sition of large masses to love quietude and security, while evils are tolera¬ 
ble, rather than make any exertions to right themselves. Even Moses, 
the inspired man of God, found it difficult to prevail upon his brethren to 
leave the land of their captivity, for the land of promise and liberty. Con¬ 
tented with their servile condition, they dreaded to embark in the wilder¬ 
ness of uncertainty. But who is it that would not rather have gone with 
Moses, and submitted to all the privations of the wilderness, than have 
remained and been fed out of the flesh pots of Egypt, by the hands of a 
master. 

A virtuous and gallant people, in a good cause, never have failed. If 
we are right and do not faulter in our measures, we must succeed. It our 
principles are right, South-Carolina, small as she is, can maintain them as 
well as twenty states joined. The constitution will be her shield. Weak 
as we appear, and strong as the federal government may seem, in the hour 
of trial, we may have the strength of David, they the weakness of Goliah. 
If the federal government is wrong, and we right, justice will prevail. 
Principles will be established which will save this government from the 
ruin which its uncontroled tendency to abuse, threatens. 

But some of our opponents who are opposed to the states acting, at any 
time, say that we have experienced no practical evil from the tariff. That 
o-oods are cheaper now than before its enactment. That we sell our cotton 
as well, and that the people at the north pay as much of the duties as we 
do. From those who think thus, we have little to hope. It shows that 
they have not examined the subject, or are unwilling to come to the con¬ 
clusion that a fair examination would lead to; and find an apology for 
submission in their ignorance and confidence. As to the first objection— 
can it be maintained that the tariff has made goods cheaper ?—if so, per¬ 
haps 30 or 50 percent, more may reduce them to nothing. The question 
is not if goods are cheaper, but how much cheaper they would be, if the 
tariff were taken off. The tariff was imposed expressly upon the ground, 
that European goods were cheaper than they could be made here. The 
duties were imposed upon foreign goods expressly to prohibit their coming 
into our markets. And, notwithstanding these duties, European goods 
can be sold as cheap as nearly any of the American fabrics. Goods are 
cheaper now in Europe, than they were ever known, in any period of 
the world; and for very obvious reasons—ten laborers are now engaged, 
where there was ojie, 15 years ago. Europe was then engaged in a gene- 


DO 


;' a ‘^ il '* T ’ [iiC1 ' fi wel ' c . comparatively lew left to be employed in manuka 
l Ul ’ os * 4,1C wa S es * a ‘ 3or was o* course higher; fewer fabrics were made, 
and 01 course they were dearer. Laborers are now many, more than can 
get employment; wages low, and capital cheap. And" to add to these 
causes of reducing the prices of goods, labor-saving machines have been 
unproved to a degree, beyond all calculation. From these causes Europe¬ 
an goons must always be cheaper than American. The wages of a laborer 
aere is from dO cents to a dollar, while many laborers in Europe can be 
employed »or fnew bread, and scarcely any but can be employed for half 
our pnees. interest is from 6 to 7 per cent, here, and from 2 1-2 to 3 there, 
lacre are i. JO laborers employed there, where there is one here. In the 
ace <>i these facts,.can it be pretended that goods can be as cheap here, as 
tnei e. Mr, h. said the matter was too plain to be dwelt upon. If a plan- 
er were to carry his cotton to England, he could get twice as much for it 
Ml way of goods, as he could to receive specie for it and lay it out for 
goods m this country with the present duties upon them. For instance 
if a planter had 100 bags of cotton, and wished to exchange them for sugar 
he could buy sugar at S cents in the l\est Indies, but a short distance 
jiomfcew-Orleans : but if he had received money for it, and wished to 
my sugar in rsew-Orleans, he would have to give 6 cents. But if he laid 
out his cotton m sugarm the West Indies, he would have to pay 3 cents a 
pound before he could land it; which would make it 6 cents. J 

x h e same remarks may be made of iron, or any other article highly tax¬ 
ed. Ihese taxes must fall principally upon those engaged in agriculture 
and commerce, because they are requited for none of the burthens they 
bear. J he European manufacturers must have our cotton until they can 
make it the interest of other countries to supply them, which they can do; 
and when they do, they will refuse to take ours, as we refuse to take their 
goods. Eut the price of cotton has fallen, and will continue to fall, under 
v.m opcmhon.of the prohibitory system. “Between the years 1820 and 

'no non?inn° (lUCtI i° n ex P orted was increased from 127,000,000to 

no [; ? P ountl,s > ' vl ;; ]e th . e aggregate value of it was only increased 
Tr ^ o 3 m i 5011S ot indicating a kill in the price of cotton from 

lb • ,? ents % P 0lln( i > 0 n the otner hand, the exports of most of the other 
productions of amnestic industry, particularly grain, decreased more in 
(juantity tlian value, indicating a gradual rise in the price.*' it is irnpos- 
S1 ■ to say v/iiat has been the extent of the injury of the tariff to us • wo 
pnow In at we are taxed contrary to our consent, and that we have 
been deprived of the benefit of our resources and the proceeds of mr 

ifShSk l0 ° d ' ,aS ,,0t 0,1,7 been take!! ’ but th * 

act !PS ilt «!*. time, because they 


J , , " , " SC11 “ IJU inose gentlemen, was as to the 

t.me, he would say but a word-that a few months time would dispel the 
delusions of.their hopes, and confirm the truth of his fears. For lie I ad 

modified ?** 1 CSpeCtati ° n that t,le tariff »»»W be repealed or satisfactorily 

1 ucre were a few tnat thought the supreme court the proper tribunal to 
decide all controversies between the federal government and the states. 


[ B “‘ ] 


smgie 


Mr. B. said he would pass over this part of the subject with 
mark, as another gentleman was understood to he well prepared, and 

_...1 J rin «U1« + !-..» 1 /it Dfl’lll 1 + X,1'9 O +1"! f» fllVino V, <dlt 

in- 
condi- 

.v. — ~.— - -,- -.and 

the province of Chief Justice Marshal and Judge Johnson, (memorable for 
his eight points, in which he intrepidly volunteered against the cause of 
his state,) to interpret them. Mr. B. said that the idea of submission could 
not be tolerated ; hopes from the government itself were delusive, and the 
supreme court could not be trusted. 

Mr. B. said, the state must rely upon herself for redress. She must in¬ 
terpose in her sovereign capacity to arrest the evil. She held her desti¬ 
nies in her own hand. He did not believe there was any danger from this 
power. Without some such checking power in the states, the federal 
government must degenerate into intolerable abuses, into tyranny and 
corruption. Fears were entertained that such a power would destroy the 
government, and lead to civil war and anarchy. Ihese were fears that 
were actively conjured up to sustain the government, and paralyze the 
state. It is a power that results from the nature of the compact, to be 
exercised by the states, for preserving the pristine purity of the union. 
The fewer and more limited the purposes <>f the union, the stronger it will 
be. As originally formed there is nothing to prevent it lasting forever. 
No one wishes to destroy it, and there is no state in the union that would 
make greater sacrifices to preserve it, than South Carolina, if any thing 
should occur now from abroad, requiring her to take the part of her dis¬ 
tant sisters, she would do it with her wonted zeal and disinterestedness. 

The power she contends for is one sacred to all the states. There is 
not the least danger of its too frequent exercise. The difficulty is ever to 
prevail on a state to exercise it. There are causes that will always pre¬ 
vent a state from using it, except in cases of extraordinary emergency. 
The federal government has its patronage and influence in every state. 
There are always men who fill its offices, or want its offices—whose ambi¬ 
tion and avarice will sustain the government, to receive its honors and 
bounties. There is another class in every state that will be inclined to 
abject submission—and another class that honestly will think with it—and 
no class that would oppose it but in a good cause, in which they would bo 
sustained by truth and justice—when all those concur, the rights and lib¬ 
erties of the state will require it. No state will interpose without the con¬ 
currence of more than two-thirds of her population. Such a power is fa¬ 
vorable, instead of being hostile to the existence of the government, because, 
it will make all satisfied with it as long as it is known there is a power 
to check its abuses. All that Congress has to do, at such a juncture, is to 
call a convention of the states to settle the controversy, according to the 
spirit of the constitution, which was formed by comprise; and which was 

not obligatory till three-fourths agreed to it. 

The question for the committee to decide, is, how shall the state inter¬ 
pose in her sovereign capacity ? Can she do it by the legislature, or 
must she do it in convention. Mr. B. said, he had always maintained 
the doctrine, that the sovereignty of the state, in relation to the federal 
government, resided in the people of the state. That no decisive mea- 


L 88 ] 

v nc‘s should be taKen m relation to that government, but by the people 
dietnseives anti lie asked why distrust the people ; would they do wrong? 
He was willing to be governed by their decision. These are his reasons 
lor a convention. That the federal constitution was adopted by the peo¬ 
ple in convention—the people of each state were the original constituents, 
and having formed it, they have a right to judge of its infractions, and to 
decide upon the mode and measure of redress. 

Mr. Madison speaking of the constitution, makes this remark : “should 
?t.l toe states adopt it, it will then be a government of thirteen states of 
America, not through the intervention of the Legislatures but the people 
at laige. Mr. B. said, that it was not only right, but expedient that a 
convention should exercise this power. The calling of a convention will 
be a difficulty, (it requiring two-thirds of the Legislature to call it,) a pro¬ 
pci l estiamt upon the precipitate exercise of any power of a state, affect¬ 
ing the general government. 

ISTgw, sir, what are the objections to a convention. By some it is con¬ 
tended, that the Legislature could do all that a convention can; the sove¬ 
reignty oi the state being vested in the Legislature. This Mr. B. said, he 
• * eniG d, and for tnc reasons stated. Others with a view to defeat the mea¬ 
sure, say, that the convention would have all power, and would remodel 
the whole government of the state. This, as all such arguments are, is 
addressed to the fears ol the members. Past experience authorises no 
such conclusions, i here have been live or six conventions of different 
Kinds since the formation of a state constitution, and they have invariably, 
m good faith, confined themselves to the subject submitted to them. They 
would do so again. Delegates would be elected for a special purpose—they 
would go from the people directly, to take into consideration the grave 
and momentous questions which had been agitated during the canvass. 
Would delegates thus elected, violate their faith, and assume to exercise 
powers not virtually committed to them ? Never. No doubt during the 
canvass men would endeavor to get into power for selfish purposes, by ap¬ 
pealing to the low and vulgar prejudices of the people. But sir, enlight¬ 
ened public opinion would put them down—and should a demagogue fan- 
pen to be elected by his prostition, to the prejudices which he himself had 
created, he could not hold his head up in the assembly of patriots who' 
wouid be assembled for the purpose of deciding great constitutional ques- 
V°J? sot llbert y* . W hile all would be intent upon common calamity, either 
differing or agreeing as to the measures to be pursued, should such a dema¬ 
gogue rise m the assembly, with some local and selfish project to distract 
it, he would only build up a funeral pile to consume him. He would be 
burned up by the indignation of every honest man. Mr. B. said that it 

was Ins decided opinion, that a convention would be bound to confine it¬ 
self to the subject submitted to it. Mr. B. said, that it ought not if it 
could, change the character of the representation in the Legislature ; the 
great bugbear of apprehension with some. No constitution could be 
better organized than that of South Carolina. No law can be pass¬ 
ed by the Legislature to destroy the peculiar interests of cither sec¬ 
tion ol the state. The parish representation will protect the rice plan- 
ters, and large proprietors of slaves from any exclusive tax or burthen * 
while the house of representatives would be a paladium of safety for the 
up country. No lav/ can pass to produce heart-burnings and jealousy'— 


[ S9 J 

all interests must concur before it is passed—thus is legislation made 
satisfactory to all.* A convention would not if it could, and could not if 
it would,alter this admirably organized constitution, and for all other al¬ 
terations of the constitution the Legislature is competent. But sir, said 
Mr. B, would not a convention be a delegated body, called by the Legisla¬ 
ture under the constitution? The constitution is the power of attorney of 
the people, and a Legislature is their agent. A convention called by the 
Legislature, would be called by the agent of the people, which could speci > 
fy the subject of deliberation of that assembly, but not limit its powers, as 
to the measures proper to be pursued. It would be the province of the 
convention to say what measures the state ought to pursue, in relation to 
her differences with the general government. It could recommend sub¬ 
mission, conference with other states, send delegates specially instructed 
to Congress, or declare the laws complained of unconstitutional and void, 
and direct the Legislature to pass all such laws as were necessary to 
maintain its decisions, or it could leave its authoritative ordinances to be 
carried into effect by the juries of the country. The convention would 
have full power over the subject submitted to it—and who is it that is not 
ready to abide by the decisions of his country thus made? Mr. B. said he 
was ready to swim or sink by the decision of a convention. It would 
have all the wisdom and patriotism of the country in it. Its deliberations 
would be characterized by dignity, gravity and wisdom, and its decisions 
by firmness and safety. It would be the decision of his country, and 
under the guidance of Heaven, he believed it would decide right, and 
that if. might do so, Mr. B. said it was his sincere prayer. 


WM. M-WILL1E*S SPEECH. 

Mr. Chairman —I agree to the fullest extent, with the gentlemen who 
have preceded me in this debate, as to the importance of the resolutions 
now submitted to the consideration of the committee; not only to this 
state, but to the United States ; and perhaps to the world. The subject 
overwhelms me ! I believe that in all probability, what we now say and 
do, will be said and done for good or evil. Be it so ; and although I am 
but on the threshold of my political life ; although this is the first time I 
have ever addressed this Legislature on any subject calling for the expres¬ 
sion of my political opinions, yet I shrink not from my share of the re¬ 
sponsibility. I am ready to respond to whatever destiny it may bring. 
I admit that to be sustained by this house, and by my country, is one among 
the warmest, the most earnest desires of my heart; but even for this.I 
would not compromise my own principles—what I believe to be my coun¬ 
try’s safety. Under any and all circumstances, I must be permitted to 
retain, at least, the proud consciousness of having done my duty; of hav¬ 
ing acted in accordance with the best dictates of my mind and heart. I 
trust that all who hear me—I think that all who know me, will award to 
me the merit of being honest, even if they should believe me to bean error. 
The fact that I am found urging and enforcing my opinions with a mi¬ 
nority ; that I am against what seems to be the popular sentiment here, 
and dare to enter die breach amidst the fire of that eloquence*-which has 

. I /v 


[ 90 J 

fallen from the lips of the member from Edgefield who last addressed 
this committee, and more especially the member from Richland ; that I 
am found strolling side by side, with those who have been branded with 
the odious epithet of cunsolidationists and submission men, should be con¬ 
clusive evidence on this point. So far as I am individually concerned, I 
regard not such slanders; I know that principles do not depend upon 
names. I feel that no member of this committee can love Carolina more 
than I do—God forbid, that there should be any who love the union less. 
Carolina is my native state. To me she has been kind—to her I owe 
every thing. Seldom, even for a few short w r eeks, have I ever breathed 
another atmosphere. With her 1 drew my first breath—with her or for 
her I hope to breathe my last. 

I am aware, that by some, the remarks I am about to make will be con¬ 
sidered as cold and tame ; and as the abandonment of the principles here¬ 
tofore professed by those who advocate this side of this great question. 
But I think not. If I understand my own opinions, they are those of the 
republican party in 1801. They are the opinions of Jefferson, who has 
been justly called the greatest of the apostles of liberty^. They are also, 
according to my conceptions, the genuine principles of the radicals of this 
statein 1825, as expressed in Smith’s resolutions. These doctrines were 
among the earliest impressions of my youth; they have grown with my 
growth and strengthened with my strength. They are sanctified by the 
experience of the past; my understanding approves of them, and they are 
incorporated with my principles—they are doctrines which have for 
their foundation, justice and equal rights; their object is human happi¬ 
ness—they should govern the world; and I now say, once for all, that I 
am ready to go as far as he who goes the farthest, in opposition to any 
violation of those principles, provided that opposition can be made con¬ 
stitutional and successful. If we will keep up proper distinctions as to 
such rights as are constitutional and such as are essentially sovereign, the 
resolutions now submitted, as I understand them, involve a question rather 
of expediency than of right—of policy than of principle. 

Is there, within the sound of my voice, a single individual who advo¬ 
cates the American system’? I think not. I can say, at least for those 
with whom I associate, that I have heard no such opinions. All denounce 
it—all oppose it. 

How or why then is it that we differ so much ? If I understand ariojit 
the opinions of gentlemen on this floor, it is, 

1st. As to the right of a state, urukv the constitution, to nullify an act 
of Congress, or in other words, by interposing its veto , to arrest^tlie exe¬ 
cution of a law of the general government and render it inoperative with¬ 
in the limits of the state. ‘ 

2d. As to the manner in which such an act ol nullification would be 
likely to operate. , ^. 

3d. As to the present necessity and expediency of calling a convention 
of the people of this state, lor the purpose ot taking into consideration the 
violations of the constitution of the United States, in reference to the ta¬ 
riff policy. 

Such, I would fain hope, is the extent of our difference of opinion, and 
that personal aggrandizement and the political aspirations of men, do not 
"nter into out deliberations, On occasions like the present, our conntrv 


L 91 1 ■ ' 

should be every thing—men and parties nothing. These are my feelings; 
Iain willing to take whatever position they may assign me; and for the 
honesty with which i shall follow them out, I am willing to be judged here 
or herea fter. 

I shall first speak of nullification; for certainly we understand each oth¬ 
er well enough to supercede the necessity of further consuming the time 
of this committee, in debating either the constitutionality or expediency 
of the tariff policy. This subject has been treated of so much and so ably, 
that public opinion in this state, may be justly said to have settled down 
in opposition to it. I consider the argument of the gentleman who open¬ 
ed this debate (Judge Huger,) as a candid and able exposition of its char¬ 
acter and effects; and at this late period,! will not detain the committee, 
by arguing that part of the proposition, but will consent that it is proved 
to be unwise, unjust and unequal in its operation, and that it is a fraud 
upon the constitution. I will therefore, at once proceed to enquire as to 
the nature of the remedy proposed—and first of nullification. 

1 presume my opinions on this point are sufficiently well understood, to 
make it unnecessary for me to say, that i am opposed to this mode ot action. 
But perhaps the whys and the wherefores may not be. I am opposed to 
it, because I do not consider it as a constitutional, but as an ultra consti¬ 
tutional remedy, and that it will not operate in that peaceful and saluta¬ 
ry way which its advocates appear to think. On the contrary, if I am not 
more deceived in reference to this nullifying process than i ever have 
on any other subject, it must result in a ridiculous farce, or a bloody tra¬ 
gedy. The advocates of nullification tell us, that its action will be peace¬ 
able and effectual! My mind is so thoroughly satisfied on this subject, 
that I might as well be told of a peaceable war or a friendly fight, as of a 
peaceable, and at the same time, an effectual act of nullification, in refer¬ 
ence to the tariff policy. I would as soon ex*pect to see Mount Etna throw 
forth ice, or the frozen regions of the north pressed with a harvest of tro¬ 
pical fruits. Gentlemen also tell us, that this is the only mode left us to 
save the union! and that such is their object!! 

It may be; but I must say, 1 would have equal faith in the physician 
who would propose to take out my heart, with a view to save my life; to 
destroy the principle of vitality, that he might preserve life itself. So it 
would be with the scheme proposed. Its operation, as I understand it, 
would destroy the very government which it professes to save. Is not 
the effect of nullification' to dissolve the political compact between the 
states, and thus to destroy the union ? 

This is a grave question. The member from Richland (Col. Preston) 
has told you, that at Washington, the sappers and miners are at work, 
tearing away stone by stone, the foundation from tiie temple of oui laici¬ 
ses_that this vast fabric which rears its proud cupolas so high, and 

spreads its mighty arches athwart the republic, shall come down in one 
overwhelming ruin. I am not the advocate of the course pursued by Con¬ 
gress. I deprecate much of its policy. But it seems to me, 1 see dangeis 
more immediate and nearer home. I think the very question which wc 
are now discussing, involves the basis on which the whole supeistiuctuie 
of our government rests; and which, it decided wrong, may endanger toe 
union. That union which was purchased by the toil and suffering and 
blood of the revolution. It is to us our common property and our common 



I 


[ 92 ] 

glory. It is the richest inheritance which has descended to us from on? 
fathers, and lias thus long been the shield and rampart of our liberty. It 
still stands the proudest monument of the patriotism and talents of those 
who devised and established it. I have heretofore hoped, and still hope, 
that it may remain in after ages as the beacon light to every people de¬ 
siring rational freedom. Shall such be its lofty destiny P The answer to 
this question may be contained in the decision of the resolutions now un¬ 
der consideration. How strong the motive then to debate them gravely; 
with minds free from every party feeling; leaving nothing—hoping noth¬ 
ing, but for our country ; we ought so to discuss them, and not seek to 
gain a paltry triumph in argument; not endeavor to obtain the decision 
by appeals to the passions and prejudices; not strive to increase our party 
by specious fallacies. I shall adopt such a course ; and I pledge myself 
that every word 1 utter shall be the deliberate convictions of my mind or 
heart. 

I have been much surprised at the course the debate has taken. Gen¬ 
tlemen have appeared to argue these topics entirely in reference to the 
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and not in reference to the constitu¬ 
tion, and the nature and theory, of our government. The question, to a 
spectator who was not familiar with our local politics, would seem to be, 
whether South Carolina had or had not the right, under the Virginia and 
Kentucky resolutions, to nullify an act of Congress, and not whether 
she had such aright under the constitution. There are few matters I ad¬ 
mit, in which I would venture to differ from the authors of those resolu¬ 
tions had they spoken explicitly to the point under consideration. But 
in all controverted questions of constitutional right, I would as certainly 
look to the constitution itself in forming my political opinions, as I would 
to the Bible, in lorming my religious creed. I will however, confine my 
remarks to the course which the argument has taken; and endeavour to 
ascertain whether Madison or Jefferson has, at any time, asserted the 
right of a state under the constitution to nullify an act of Congress. I feel 
persuaded, that toe evidence which I shall offer, will be conclusive to 
those who have not prejudged the question. 

I will first call to the notice of the committee, Mr. Jefferson’s letter to 
Mr. Nicholas, dated 5th September, 1799. From that paper I think two 
things will appear: first, that Mr. Jefferson did not write the Kentucky 
resolutions of 1799, but that he expressly declined it. In those resolutions 
only, does the ill omened word nullification apper. It does not occur at 
all in the lesolutions oi 1/ 98, of which he was the acknowledged author. 

In the second place, it will appear in the same letter that Mr. Jefferson 
recognizes no such intermediate right as the one contended for, between 
piotestation and secession:—but on the contrary, that letter manifestly 
shows that the first step to be taken by Kentucky, was to make firm pro¬ 
testation against the precedent and principle ol the alien and sedition laws; 
toon to wait with a proper confidence, that the good sense and patriotism 
or the American people would bring back the government to the true prin¬ 
ciples of the federal compact, and that after these hopes had failed, in cases 


71 , "lamia m Yvnicn ivir. Jenerson speaks ol the rights 

of the state, and what she might rightfully do, he distinctly refers to the 




' igh( ol secession ; thus negativing the idea that there wa 


according to 


his understanding of the constitution, any half way measures such as 
contended for by the advocates of nullification. 

It we examine the writings and oninions of Mr. Jefferson, we never find 
the term used, or the idea held out many form, that a state has trader the 
constitution, a right to arrest the execution of a law of Congress. 

It appears to me most certain, that if Mr. Jefferson had entertained 
such opinions, they would have been made public. Such more especially 
would have been the case, inasmuch as he was one of those politicians 
who most ably advocated the rights of the states. I take the proper dis¬ 
tinction between the right of which Mr. Jefferson speaks in the Kentucky 
resolutions and the doctrines of nullification, to be this :—He refers to a 
sovereign right, for which the constitution had not provided; and for 
which the common judicial tribunals of the country could not afford a 
peaceable remedy. In the resolutions of 1798, he expressly states, that 
the course of the general government would drive the states “into revolu¬ 
tion and blood.” The advocates of nullification say, that it is a right 
under the constitution; and that its operation will be peaceable and 
agreeable to the forms of law. 

It is in this particular that I resist this doctrine; as I believe it is but 
another name for secession, and is calculated to mislead the people in 
relation to fundamental principles as it has been explained by gentle¬ 
men on this door and elsewhere, they would believe themselves to be 
peaceably in the pursuit of their legal and constitutional rights, whilst 
they were on the high road to revolution. 

1 insist that things be called by their proper names ; that our constitu¬ 
ents may know their effect, and fully understand the measures which we 
propose to them; that they may not be goaded on to the assertion of legal 
l ights which they do not possess, or rendered fanatic in the pursuit of 
constitutional principles which do not exist. In the name of God let the 
people understand the case; and I am willing, when they are so enlight¬ 
ened, to submit to their verdict. And I pledge myself, so far as I am 
able, to prevent it, they shall not be deceived. 

I think I have exhibited a true exposition^* the opinions of Mr. Jeffer¬ 
son. Notwithstanding he has been so often quoted as the asserterand 
supporter of the opinions of the nullifying party, yet directly the contrary 
is the true state of the fact!—he is with me and not with those opposed 
to me. v ■ 

I will next, Mr. Chairman, bring the attention of the committee to the 
Virginia resolutions, and I believe, with greater certainty be able to 
show, that they do not support the doctrines of nullification as a consti¬ 
tutional remedy. If I can disembarrass the question from those, the dis¬ 
cussion will be" at an end,—for it seems that this political heresy is in¬ 
debted for its existence to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. 

It will certainly be considered Fair, to refer to the report of Mr. Madi¬ 
son, on the resolutions which were adopted by the Virginia Legislature, 
and intended to declare expressly and distinctly what was the under¬ 
standing of those resolutions by him who wrote them, and those who 

o * 

adopted them. 

It contains their own exposition, at the time, and in fact, is a part ol 
the res gestn. Mr. Madison, in that report uses the following language, 


* The resolution of the general assembly relates to those great and extra 
ordinary cases, in whichall the forms of the constitution may prove inef¬ 
fectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties 
to it,” 

What, I would ask, is the meaning of tins language? Does it speak of 
constitutional rights ? No! lint of rights for the protection of which the 
constitution had not provided. Of rights, as I understand them, which 
are essential to a state in its sovereign capacity—revolutionary in their 
tendency. 

I would ask the committee, if the conduct of Virginia on that occasion, 
did not speak volumes, as to what was her understanding of the rights 
referred to. With the adoption of those resolutions, she filled her armo¬ 
ries with arms; intending, no doubt,to have used them, had there not been 
a reaction in public opinion. This is a mode of nullification which I can 
comprehend. But I cannot understand it as a peaceable and a constitu¬ 
tional remedy. Such a positive declaration ought to be conclusive :—and 
it is to my mind unaccountable, how the construction contended for should 
ever have been given. There is, however, still other evidence on this 
point which must satisfy the minds of all, unless there may be those who 
are determined not to be convinced. I refer, in the first place, to the 
debate in the house of delegates of Virginia on the subject; from which it 
will appear, that in those resolutions as originally drafted, the seventh 
resolve set forth that the alien and sedition acts “are unconstitutional 
and not law, but utterly null, void and of no effect.” In the course of the 
proceeding, all the words after “unconstitutional” were striken out 
before their adoption, by unanimous consent. This is a fact which should 
be conclusive, that the doctrines of nullification were not asserted ; but on 
the contrary were expressly negatived. Thus it seems that the only in¬ 
stance where the word “null” occurs, it was unhesitatingly expunged. 
Nor does any other part of that debate, or the history of that transaction 
support the proposition of gentlemen. The contrary, in every instance 
seems to be expressly declared. 

In following up these remarks, I will next call the attention of the com¬ 
mittee to the letter of Mr. Madison, published in the North American 
Review, of October last. If any thing were wanting, at this day, to settle 
the understanding and true construction of the Virginia resolutions, that 
is the highest authority that can be offered. Mr. Madison may justly say 
on this subject, “omnia vidi, et magnaparsfui .” lie drew the resolu¬ 
tions, wrote the famous report;—he was then, and has ever since been 
recognized as one of the most able constitutional lawyers and politicians 
this country has produced. When speaking of the constitution of the 
United States, he says, “ That it being a compact among the states in 
their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one 
people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of 
the states individually, as the constitution of the state may be at its indi¬ 
vidual will.” And iurther, when treating more d irectly of the right of a 
state to nullify an act of Congress, he says, “That to" have left a final 
decision, in such cases, to each of the states, then thirteen, and already 
twenty-four, could not I ail to make the constitution and laws of the United 
States different in different states, was obvious; and not less obvious, 
that.this diversity cl independent decisions, must altogether distract the 




<1 \ 

L JO J 

government ot the union, and speedily put an end to the union itself. A 
uniform authority of the laws, is in itself a vital principle. Some of the 
most important laws could not be partially executed. They must be exe¬ 
cuted in all the states, or they could be duly executed in none. An impost 
or an excise for example, if not in force in some states, would be defeat¬ 
ed in others. It is well known that this was among the lessons of experi¬ 
ence which had a primary influence in bringing about the existing consti¬ 
tution.'’ Such is the language of Mr. Madison; and is it not the language 
ot reason, and of common sense? Is it in the nature of things that a 
government, liable to be controlled by twenty-four independent wills, 
could be efficient, answer any practical purpose, or even continue to exist? 
Would such a government be any government ? It is as much an absur¬ 
dity, as to say a tiling is, and is not. 

m I have been accustomed to regard, with a degree of veneration, the 
wisdom ot those great and good men who framed our constitution. But 
that veneration would be lost, it such a right had been reserved by an 
express insertion in that instrument, among the reserved powers. Their 
labors would have been in vain, and our government would long since 
have been at an end. Mr. Madison was one of those most influential in 
inducing the states to adopt our present form of government:—and lie 
tells us that such a right was not reserved to the states under the constitu¬ 
tion. He distinctly tells us too, that it was not intended by the Virginia 
resolutions to assert such a right. 

This I would consider as conclusive, and when I first saw his letter on 
this subject, I could not but regard this agitating question as forever settled. 
To my utter astonishment, however, I have heard gentlemen say in this 
debate, that “ Mr. Madison was now in his dotage, that he had abandoned 
his former principles, and therefore, he was not to be permitted to explain 
his own acts.” This is hardihood indeed ! If the Messiah were again to 
appear on earth, the preachers of his holy gospel, might, with the same 
| propriety, refuse to permit him to explain a doubtful text. 

Can gentlemen be candid, when they deny this right, and say that he is 
not now to be trusted? This may be their opinion—but, thank heaven, I 
differ widely from them. I cannot believe that this grey-headed patriot, 
whom his country has delighted to honor, and which country he has so 
ably and faithfully served, could wilfully utter a falsehood? And it 
would appear to me impossible that any man could carefully read his 
letter, and then pronounce that its author was in his dotage. No! I recog¬ 
nize in him a different character—I venerate his name, and see him as 
one standing between us and the graves of our fathers, telling us what 
thev did—what we should do. Mr. Madison, in the letter referred to, 
after denying the right of a state to nullify an act of Congress, pourtraying 
its effects, and shewing the guards which the constitution had thrown 
around the sovereignty of the states, uses the following language.—“ In the 
event of a failure ot every constitutional resort, and an accumulation of 
usurpations and abuses, rendering passive obedience and non-resistance 
a greater evil than resistance and revolution, there can remain but one 
resort, the last of all; an appeal from the cancelled obligations of the 
constitutional compact, to original rights and the law of self-preservation. 
This is the ultima ratio under all governments, whether consolidated, 
confederated, or a compound of both: and it cannot be doubted, that a 






single member oi the union, in the extremity supposed, but in that only, 
•would have a right, as an extra and ultra-constitutional right, to make the 

appeal/’ . , 

This is a mode of resistance that is intelligible;—and, to my nnnd, 
nothin'? can be more contradictory in terms, than to suppose that there is 
a state between submission to, amfresistance of the law. Ours is a govern¬ 
ment of laws.—While we submit to those laws we constitute one nation ; 
hut when we resist and reject them, the integrity ot the union is dissolved. 
Our government is not bound together in bonds ot despotism, which are 
rivetted upon us by bayonets. The discussion ot the resolutions now be¬ 
fore us, shows most forcibly the necessity of recurring to first principles— 
of permitting the constitution to speak for itselt. 11 we look into the reso¬ 
lutions of other states, passed by their Legislatures at the time, or soon 
after the adoption of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, we shall rea¬ 
dily find other doctrines which our opponents might use with the same 
justice with which we use those last referred to. This state did not even 
give a response to those so important and much talked ot resolutions. But 
now, when they are, (as we construe them) repudiated by both \ irginia and 
Kentucky, we make them the corner stone ot our political faith. Is it dig¬ 
nified in South Carolina, to dress herself up in the thrown-off clothes of any 
state? Is it right or proper that we, her Legislature, should adopt verbatim 
el literatim, the resolutions of 1793 ? Is it dealing fairly with our constitu¬ 
ents to express ourselves knowingly in language which admits of two con¬ 
structions, from which nullification or the contrary may be inferred? Is it 
honest or patriotic, thus to shrink from responsibility; again throwing 
the apple of discord among our people ? No! If we are for nullification 
let us say so—language of our own may be found to express the idea, 
vague and undefined as.it is. 

In the progress of this discussion much reliance has been placed on the 
authority of the names of political men, and the course adopted by differ¬ 
ent states. I will not trouble the committee with such arguments, for I 
presume even those who are opposed to me would admit that the weight 
of authority is against nullification. I will make but one reference, and 
that only because I know it will be respected by those opposed to me. 
I refer to Mr. M‘Duffie 5 s publication, signed “ one of the people.” In 
that publication, the author treats of national and state rights, and the 
rio-ht of a state to interpose to arrest the execution of a law of Congress 
(which is nullification) somewhat at length ; and among others, he makes 
the following strong and appropriate remarks:—“ I confess I am at a loss 
to know how such a proposition ought to be treated. No climax of politi¬ 
cal heresies can be imagined in which this might not fairly claim the most 
prominent place. It resolves the government at once into the elements of 
physical force, and introduces us directly into a scene of anarchy and 
blood. There is not a single power delegated to the general government, 
which it would not be in the power of every state government to destroy, 
under the authority of this licentious principle. It will be only necessary 
for a state legislature to pass a law forbidding that which the federal 
Legislature enjoins, or enjoining that which the federal Legislature forbids, 
and the work is accomplished.” 

It is due to a proper understanding of mv own opinions, and what I 
presume were those of Mi*. MvDuffie’s, to say, that 1 understand him here 


to refer to rights under the constitution, and which are peaceable and 
legal in their operation, and not to sovereign rights. In her 


sovereign 


character, I believe South Carolina has the right to arrest the execution of 
any law. But in doing so, she must assume a sovereign’s responsibilities, 
and, it necessary, appeal to the sword, the common arbiter of sovereigns. 
Let us not deceive ourselves or others with the idea that this remedy is 
either constitutional or peaceable. It is not the one, and in all human 
probability, would not be the other. 

So much for the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. I will now take 
leave of this part of the argument, trusting that I have been able to shew, 
that neither of them, under the authority and sanction of Madison or Jef¬ 
ferson, supports the doctrine of nullification. 

I will next briefly enquire, what were the circumstances which led to 
the adoption of our present form of government? and make a few remarks 
upon the history of those times. 

A power somewhat analogous to the one now contended for on the part 
of the states, under the old articles ol confederation, perhaps, was the 
strongest circumstance inducing the adoption of the present constitution. 
A few years were sufficient to satisfy the states that a government purely 
federative, formed of so many distinct sovereignties, and liable to be con¬ 
trolled by so many conflicting interests and opinions, was wholly inade¬ 
quate to the object which it proposed. Under the confederation, the 
government of the United States had no direct action on either the people 
of the states, or their property ; but was compelled to depend upon the 
state governments for the execution of its laws, or rather its requisitions 
or requests. The present government was formed expressly with a view 
of giving the federal compact a direct operation on the persons and pro¬ 
perty of the people ; thus drawing closer the bonds of union, and thereby 
creating a national confederacy to a certain extent and for certain purpo¬ 
ses, in contradistinction to a confederacy of independent nations. 

The operation of the general government since that time has certainly 
recognized this view of the subject. It has gone steadily forward in the 
execution of its laws and treaties, by its own means and its own officers, 
without reference to individual states; thus asserting our national exis¬ 
tence. 

Most certainly it was the intention of the constitution to make the laws 
of the general government, made under it, paramount to all enactments by 
the states. It declares that they “shall be the supreme laws of the land; 
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; any thing in the 
constitution^ laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” If this 
had not been the sense in which the constitution of the United States was 
received, would not something have been said on that point? Would 
not some clause have been introduced, declaring to what extent tne pow¬ 
er of the o-eneral government shall operate, when it contravenes or comes 
in contact with the state authorities? If the right ol nullification, as con¬ 
tended for, had been intended to be reserved to the states, would not the 
constitution of the United States have recognized it? If the states have 
the constitutional right to nullify, the general government is bound i>y the 
constitution to respect and obey the act ol nullification, oi tne constitution 

would be incompatible with itself. ...... 

I will now ask tins committee, to re'er to the various publications 



[ 98 ] 

which took place at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and more 
especially to the “Federalist,” which was written expressly with a view 
ot allaying the jealousies and apprehensions of the states, in reference to 
the powers delegated by that instrument to the general government, and 
with a view of influencing the states to its adoption, and see if any such 
light as the one contended for is ever hinted at. If such a right had been 
reserved to the states, would Madison, Jay and Hamilton have hesitated to 
have said so? Would they have scrupled to avow it? Would they have 
affected silence on this point, when it was all important that every thing 
should be known on this great subject? They, as honest men and patriots, 
would certainly have expiessed it; and such an expression would, at 
once, have quieted every apprehension on the part of the states, and would 
have secured the adoption of that instrument, so much the object of their 
solicitude. But so far from arguing in favor of such a right, they clearlv 
negative the idea of its existence, by omitting to speak of it, when they 
enumerate the various influences which would be at work, and would be 
sufficient, as they supposed, to confine the general government within its 
legitimate sphere of action. They refer to public opinion, and the judicial 
tribunals, the sympathy between the legislative and constituent bodies, 
the liability of the president and judges to impeachment; but say notone 
word about nullification. If the nullifying power had an existence in the 
constitution, it would have superseded the necessity of a reference to any 
other. This state of things admits of but one construction; and that is, 
that no such right was intended to be reserved to the states. 1 would also 
refer the attention of the committee to the fact, that the tariff' of which we 
complain, is a commercial law; and the states have delegated all com¬ 
mercial powers to the general government, and consequently, can have 
no reserved rights on that point. 

There is no view I can take of this matter, which does not lead to ab¬ 
surdity; and it is a maxim «of politics as w ell as of common sense, that 
whenever any doctrine leads to such a conclusion, it has no just foundation 
and must be false. Let us see if this would not be the case with nullifi¬ 
cation ? I will take an instance which will be familiar to all. Suppose 
Georgia were to nullify the treaties made by the general government with 
the Indian tribes within her territorial limits; and Massachusetts or some 
othei state weic tonullify theact making appropriations lor their removal. 
Here would be certain acts of nullification inconsistent with each other ; 
placing the government in the situation of the “ass between two bundles 
of hay.” Or, suppose the nation to be engaged in war; would a state be 
competent to nullify an act making appropriations, and providing the 
means for carrying on that war ? I will not follow this view of the subject 
any further, for there is no end to the absurdities in which it involves us 

I will now, Mr. Chairman, notice some ot the modes by which it is 
proposed to reconcile the doctrines of nullification with the safety of the 
union, and give to those doctrines a peaceable and legal operation. The 
advocates of this doctrine, and who, strange to tell, are the advocates of 
state rights and strict construction too, say, that if a state were to nullify 
an act ot Congress, that act would become inoperative and void within 
the limits of the state so nullifying, unless Congress should call a conven- 
tiori ot the states, and obtain an express grant of the disputed power — 
his position involves this absurdity; that, notwithstanding we contend 


\ 




t 99 

riiat the tariff is an intolerable and unconstitutional oppression, vet it’ 
three fourths ot the states should still declare it constitutional, we would 
be bound to submit. Would not the result of such a step, be virtually an 
abandonment o£all sovereignty on the part of the states? 

It we constitute a tribunal, by the congregation of the states in conven¬ 
tion, to decide upon and control the sovereign rights of the states, the 
states as soverignties will cease to exist. The right of resistance by force, 
would be taken trom us, and that too by our ovvn consent; and all our 
acts tending thus to the assertion of the sovereign rights of the states, 
would be treason or rebellion. It we appeal to Cmsar we must abide bv 
Csesar’s decisions, be they what they may. 

Is this doctrine of nullification more in unison with a strict construc¬ 
tion of the constitution than the ‘‘general welfare” doctrines? Nullifi¬ 
cation is, as I have endeavored to prove, negatived by the constitution: 
and this mode ot obtaining a convention of the states to act judicially, is 
the creation of a tribunal, for purposes unknown to that instrument; and 
expressly in contradiction to the mode prescribed, requiring the concur¬ 
rence ot two thirds ol both houses of Congress, or the recommendation of 
two thirds ot the states, to call a convention. The present latitudinarian 
notions give to each state the power or right to compel this call. Are 
those notions compatible with a strict construction of republicanism? 

There is another “practical mode of nullification” suggested both in 
and out ot this house, which appears to me equally absurd. This mode is 
nullification by the Legislature or a convention, and then the purpose 
seems to be, to submit the matter to the judicial tribunals. In this event, 
it appears to be conceded that the court would be against us; but there 
would be a strong hope in the juries of the country. Although I entertain 
the highest respect for the trial by jury, yet, 1 cannot see how this mode 
can be made effectual, even if the juries should be in our favor;—because 
the court would have the power of sending the cases back to the juries, 
and continuing to do so, until verdicts should be found in favor of the 
plaintiffs, which would settle the matter finally. The object of all legisla¬ 
tion should be for the benefit of tiie people ; but they could take no benefit 
trom such an act of nullification. The importing merchant resting in un¬ 
certainty as to what might be the decision of the courts, would proceed to 
sell his goods at the usual profit, and, perhaps, the additional expenses ot 
a lawsuit. No advantage can result from such a course; but, on the 
contrary, much of evil. It wouid strongly tend to alienate the minds ot 
the people from the government; and, in all probability, be the beginning 
of anarchy. But suppose there was some plausibility in the idea, how 
easy would it be for Congress to require the payment of duties in money, 
which would prevent the possibility of reference to a jury. In such an 
event, there would be no resort. The act of nullification would itself be 
nullified. It would remain a dead letter, unless we directed the execu¬ 
tive to resist the execution of the tariff laws by force. 

A question would here arise, whether the general government could 
permit its laws to be so arrested ? I would say it could not. II it could, 
the whole revenue would be stopped; and L believe it is well understood 
that money is as necessary to a government, as power to machinery. 

Should the doctrines of nullification be acted upon, this is the point where 
the first blow would be struck. It would be the beginning of civil war. 


) 


100 } 

When, or where, or how it would end, no man can tell! Countrymen 
would be opposed to cacli; their swords would clash in deadly combat, 
and be wet with the blood of brothers! ! Our property, our lives, our 
families, our country, our all would be involved in the general strug¬ 
gle !!! Before we approach the crater of this volcano , will we not calcu¬ 
late where the missiles may fall, and the lava run ? 

'The member from Richland (Col. Preston,) has endeavoured to simplify 
the effect of nullification, by calling a decision of the supreme court, de¬ 
claring a law to be unconstitutional, an act of nullification. 

Ibis case does not appear to me to be analogous. The court is a co¬ 
ordinate branch of the government, in the regular discharge of one of the du¬ 
ties for which it was created. It does not strike my mind, that there is any 
resemblance between the judicial nullification, (if it may be so called) and 
that proposed. File same gentleman tells us, that V irginia nullified the 
“alien and sedition” laws. I think she did not—it is true, Virginia did 
exempt the members of her Legislature from its penalties, in regard to 
such things as they might write or say, in the performance of their'official 
duties. 1 his exemption, I am pursuaded, would have existed, if no such 
act had ever been passed. The very nature of their duties and office re¬ 
quired that it should be so. \ irginia as I understand it, rather recogniz¬ 
ed than nullified the sedition law, by that act. The single exception to its 
action shews its general operation. We might as well say, that the law of 
<11 iest was nullified in South Carolina, because we the members of her 
Legislature are exempted from arrest during our continuance here. But 
we all know this is not the case. The law on that subject is as much of 
totce in the state generally, as it we were not exempted from its sanctions. 

ma y be safely said that where force begins, law and government end. 
When we nullify, I am persuaded it will be the beginning of violence, 
and this republic will be no more. Have we come to this ? Are we pre¬ 
pared to say that we will no longer be called the countrymen of Wash¬ 
ington ; and that the history of the revolution and of the late war shall no 
onger be our history P Are we prepared to say, that the eagle, the em¬ 
blem of our national glory, shall no- longer be our eagle ? That our beau- 
titul standard, the standard of stars and stripes, emblematical of the union 
of these states shall no longer be our standard ? Are we prepared to dis¬ 
card this standard, with which is associated all that we have of national 
character, and around which our Cithers rallied when they drove the proud 
oppressors from our shores: that standard which has floated broad and 
mg i, triumphant and glorious in the rush of many a fight, where the stron°-- 
est of our countrymen have striven, and the bravest have bled ? Can we 
deface its honors P Will we trample it in the dust ? Shall all that has 
been said of it in rhetoric in poetry and in song, be heard no more ? No. 
la least for one, must answer no-of this my conscience will be clear- 

i ^ft Par n ¥ enR if ° f C0U _ ntl T» the expiring spirit of liberty, shall 
ereaftei arise horn the tombs of my slaughtered countrymen, and shake 

er goiy ocks before me, and ask “who did this thingP” I, at least for 
one, wiH be able to answer, “ thou canst not say I did it!” 

remedv W «^ e SI re » n,a f7 Wh ° Can , ,0 ° k even t0 secession as a peaceable 
ofToosemwVh^alk about ffiosennig the bonds of our union as familiarly as 

miWthi gth< i tie ,°f their crava ts; and who, by their conduct, are pre- 
pa in D the people of this state for such a consummation They are deceive 


i 


I . [ 101 ] 

themselves, and arc deceiving the people. The history of the world 
does not furnish a precedent justifying such an opinion. No ! our union 
is bound in the gordian knot ; a knot which must be well soaked in the 
blood of our brethren before even the sword will cut it. We are urged 
too, by all the powers of pursuasion and of rhetoric, to act at the moment 
decisively. Even in this debate, we have been told that the object of the 
north and west is to emancipate our slaves, to destroy our property. This 
is an argument I did not expect to hear in this house. It is a subject, al¬ 
though a slaveowner, on which I have no apprehensions—nor have 1 yet 
heard of the first man who hesitated to purchase a slave, because he feared 
such an interferance. It is what I have often heard said, but have never 
seen reduced to practice. Are not men’s actions more conclusive of their 
opinions, than fine spun theories of the brain? I have no fears in this 
matter from the general government; but I have sometimes feared the 
effect of our own madness and temerity. If any thing would be likely to 
destroy the value of this property, it would be disunion or civil war. We 
might "then hear the shout of liberty, from quarters which would appal the 
stoutest hearts. We might realize the horrors of St. Domingo ; where the 
labours of man, the monuments of art, where infancy and age; woman’s 
feebleness and man’s strength, were swept away in one vast, overwhelming- 
tide of blood. Disunion would be the beginning of evil; its continuance 
would be misery and crime; and its end, utter desolation. We then 
should see some proud despot rise to power on the.ruins of liberty; who 
would march to his triumphs over the graves of his countrymen ; the dust 
of his feet laid by their tears* and his person fanned by the sighs of widows 
and orphans his ambition had made. 

I am aware that the common mode of replying to suggestions like these, 
is, as we have already heard in this debate, to tell us that we appeal to the 
fears of men. That" we talk to the people.of “trumpets, blunderbusses, 
drums and thunder,” that we may create alarms. For myself I can say, 
such is not the case—I speak only of what I believe will be the practical 
consequences of nullification. T take not my counsels of fear —can a 
passion so mean—a principle so base—be the attribute of a freeman’s 
heart, when his country and his liberty are the subjects of discussion ? 
No! For myself I fear nothing; but"for my country I fear everything . 
The gentleman from Richland has told us, that he is “unwilling to die by 
inches; that when his spirit leaves him, he wishes that it may go in one 
bright and glorious flash, shouting the praises of liberty.” This is a gal¬ 
lant thought—I am proud that he is my countryman—I know not how I 
then shalTact, or how I may die—-but I trust that if he and I shall ever 
meet where the dead shall lie thick around us, that my hand will be as 
steady and my heart as firm as his. I trust that I then shall strike as far 
and as strong for life as others ; and feel as much the glorious rapture of 
the conflict.^ But if these things must come, let my hand be free; let me 
not fear that I may see upon it the stain of blood, that my body may fill a 
traitor’s grave, or my epitaph record a traitor’s name ! Let us have no 
false devices, such as nullification. Let us assume a sovereign’s respon¬ 
sibility, and if necessary, respond to his perils, or enjoy his triumphs. 

I will now take leave ol this part of the subject, hoping, that ii I have 
failed in every thing else, I may have succeeded in shewing that nullifica¬ 
tion is not a constitutional remedy, and that its practical effects are doubt- 


• f W2 ] 

1 ui and dangerous. If J have done this, I feel that 1 have done much. 11 
we doubt on a matter involving issues so important to the destinies of 
millions we cannot act. And have we not yet too much to hope, to ven¬ 
ture upon this untried experiment. 

Will we, in the midst of darkness, dangers and death, consent to follow 
this false idol ? This veiled prophet ? This thing whose followers are 
unable to assign it a local habitation, but tell us it stands in some place on 
the narrow isthmus between peace and war, and to which our language 
does not furnish a name? Can you believe in its professions? Has it 
life and liberty and happiness at its disposal? No! Remove tjie veil 
and I pledge myself, you will see a monster’s figure and a demon’s face. 
I hat over this state, perhaps these'United States, for rather dis-united 
States) shall carry fire and quench the flames in bloou. 

As illustrative of my conclusions on this subject, I would remark, that I 
admit the state in her sovereign character has the right to interpose for 
the protection of her citizens, against the violations of the constitutional 
compact. It is a right essential to sovereignty. The same must be said 
ot the federal government. It too being sovereign, has of necessity in the 
exercise ol legitimate functions the right to judge of the limitations and ex¬ 
tent of that sovereignty. This Legislature, which, for all practical pur¬ 
poses, represents the sovereignty of the state, has said the tariff law is 
unconstitutional. I he Congress of the United States which represents 
the sovereignty of the federal government, by enacting this law, has af¬ 
firmed its constitutionality. Here is a case in which sovereigns differ, 
ihe only direct appeal is to the sword, the ultima ratio of all sovereigns; 
unless we consent to await the action of public opinion and the other le¬ 
gitimate modes of bringing the government back to the true principles of 
the original compact. What i ask of this committee is to wait, and not 
make this appeal now—confidently hoping that the good sense of the 
American people will yet save us from this last and greatest of evils, 
which I most fervently pray to Heaven, maybe averted from this my be¬ 
loved country. ” " J 

Having thus stated my objections to nullification, I will now proceed 
to point out, why I am opposed, at this time, to the call of a convention. 

I am opposed to it, because I really can see no object which we could pro¬ 
pose to a convention, unless it be nullification or secession. I will ask 
the members of this committee, if this Legislature has not every other 
power on this subject which a convention could or would have ? It is 
competent to all the purposes of legislation ; it can even change the con¬ 
stitution; it is the embodied sovereignty of the state. Why°then call a 
.convention, unless you want it to do something which we cannot do? It 
is competent for this Legislature to bring all the powers of petition, of re- 
monstiance, and of argument, and of every other moral resource, to bear 
upon this subject. Man has but two natures, his moral and phvsical • we 
can address the one, and when we believe that it has become necessary to 
make use of the other, in the last appeal, let the question be submitted to 
the people m convention. I believe that a convention, at this time could 
do no good, but might be the cause of great evil. It commits us for imme¬ 
diate violence or submission. If we elect a nullification convention it 
will be a miracle if it does not dissolve the union. If we elect a conven¬ 
tion pledged to the preservation of the union, the moral position we now 




t 103 ] 

occupy will be lost. That position is worth much—was it not tins which 
enabled our President to say to the people of Ohio, in his address to them 
at Cincinnati, “ that a leading object with him, in putting his veto on the 
Lexington and Maysville turnpike road bill, was, that he might preserve 
the union ?” Some of those who advocate the cause of a convention say, 
that they wish it to meet, and after remonstrating, to adjourn to some fu¬ 
ture day, leaving time for the remonstrance to produce its effect; and then, 
it necessary, to act more decisively. This is a mode which would be im¬ 
practicable. Ihe people would not elect any man to a convention, with¬ 
out the most solemn pledge as to the course he would ultimately pursue. 
I at least for one, would not; and 1 certainly would assist in hanging anv 
man for whom I voted, who violated this pledge. How would this ques¬ 
tion be agitated before the people ? Would it not be upon the ground of 
union or disunion ? I should not know how else to treat it. The people 
deal upon broad grounds—they would not enter into the abstractions and 
metaphysical niceties of politicians. Such is the variety of inducements 
which have been held out to the people to call a convention, that, I doubt 
exceedingly, it one were to be now called, whether a majority could be ob¬ 
tained in favor of any given proposition. This diversity of opinion is, to 
my mind, conclusive that we should not act—let us agree among our¬ 
selves, before we move in a matter so important. I have no hesitation in 
saying, that it the tariff*should produce the predicted and anticipated evils, 
and should not be repealed or modified by Congress, we shall agree; and 
the other southern states will unite with us. It was justly said by the 
gentleman from Edgefield (Mr. Butler,) who preceeded me in this debate 
on yesterday, “that in a charge of cavalry, the foremost horse must regu¬ 
late his gait, to the speed of the hinder horses.” So with our state: let 
her rein up a little, until the other states shall come up, and are prepared 
to feel and act with her. Then the embodied expression ofpublic opinion 
in the south, must have its weight. I wish I could have the faith, if that 
faith were well founded, which some gentlemen appear to have, in the ef¬ 
fect of a convention : for if we are to believe all we have heard of its won¬ 
derful efficacy, it is the great political elixir that is to relieve us from eve¬ 
ry ill, and like the spear of Achilies, if it should wound it would heal. It 
promises every thing—but I have never yet been informed how it is to 
produce the mighty results proposed. In the canvass last summer before 
the people, from nearly every district in the state, I heard it said, if you 
vote fora convention, you will accomplish your object, you will compel 
the repeal of the tariff*. Convention then was the word; I feared that 
nullification would be the deed. I am still of the same opinion; but I am 
even as yet, left to dark inferences on this subject. All that has yet been 
proposed by the arguments in its favor, has been as suggested by the mem¬ 
ber from York, that it would make our opponents believe that we were in 
earnest. Has poor South Carolina come to this. Must she assume the 
highest attributes of sovereignty before she can be accredited. No! the 
world knows we are in earnest—we have spoken through this Legislature 
and by our senators and representatives in Congress in unmeasured terms; 
a language that cannot be doubted. Another gentleman has told us, that 
lie wanted a convention, merely to declare the tariff law unconstitutional. 
Is this all ? Can its advocates tell us of nothing else that it can or will 
do? If this is the case, we certainly have had much ado about nothing. 



ft 


| 104 j 

From what I had heard of its omnipotence before entering these walls, I 
had thought or rather imagined that its advocates believed, if it would 
speak with the voice of Jupiter when he thunders from Olympus and caus- 
ses the world to tremble; or that if it should but stretch its hand, it could 
heave the Gods, the ocean and the land.” 

I have no belief that we should be benefitted by calling a convention at 
this time. But on the contrary, 1 believe it would commit us to immediate 
revolution ; or to a more abject submission to the tariff policy. The peo¬ 
ple will settle this matter at the ballot box—-it will not be done in con¬ 
vention. If I believed as is stated in the last resolution, that this state 
had nothing to hope from the wisdom and justice of the federal govern¬ 
ment, I might bring my mind to vote for the call of a convention. But I 
have hopes, and I think that very resolution indicates hope. It fixes the 
time for the assembling of a convention after the adjournment of the pre¬ 
sent Congress—why postpone it if nothing is expected ? 

I will now submit to the consideration of the committee, some of the 
grounds on which I predicate my hope. I have, in the first place, entire 
confidence in the truth and justice of our cause. I believe our efforts in 
defence of our constitutional rights, will yet prove successful. It is a 
maxim which I have been taught, and which I believe, that truth in a 
government like ours, must ultimately prevail. Let the press be free to 
combat error, and it will go down. With us every thing is open to dis¬ 
cussion ; and public opinion, when it settles down, will be right. If we 
judge of the future by the past, which is the only fair mode of forming 
our estimates, we may entertain such expectations. Were not V irginia 
and Kentucky excited as we now are, during the administration of the 
elder Adams, against the alien anc! sedition laws? Did not the people 
get right? Did they not peaceably and without either convention or nul¬ 
lification correct the evil ? Will they not do so again ? The voice of the 
people is the voice of God ?—It is truth. Our cause while thus support¬ 
ed must prevail. From it, is derived all that is irresistable in argument, 
and overwhelming in sentiment. It is true, that for a season we mav be 
deluded by our passions or by falsehood: but all the fixed and lasting 
sympathies of our natures are with justice and virtue. So true is this 
position, that even our oppressors seek out plausible pretences for the 
policy which they advocate, thus attempting to delude us. They offer the 
inducements ofinterests and the fascinations of*hope; like that evil spirit 
who tempts his followers to crime in the garb and image of an “angel of 
light,” pledging them to happiness “ amidst perfumes and oil and wine.” 
Yes! truth must prevail: and have we not reason to believe that it has 
already commenced its triumphant march? I believe it* had its begin¬ 
ning, in the shape of governmental reform, in the election of Andrew 
Jackson to the presidency. From him we have every thing to hope and 
nothing to fear ; we know that he is a patriot, and that he will serve his 
country with his best ability. May his military renown , the glory of 
conquest, the hero ot Orleans, be lost in the president of the people—and 
may the measure of his honor be filled by the restoration of the govern¬ 
ment to its proper constitutional limits, the principles of 1801: the true 
standard of republicanism:—Thus “holding the scale of empire with the 
same steady hand with which he ruled the storm of mighty war.” This 
will be to the other actions of his eventful life, as the noon-tide sun to the* 
pale lights of heaven. 




L 105 J 1 

* W 

lit ihe confidence of hope, 1 feel that such will be the case ; that under 
his administration, our government will be to the whole republic, as the 
heart to the human system; imparting life and strength to all its members: 
One being palsied through which even though the vital stream may flow, 
it brings nor life nor strength. Have we not already witnessed the most 
patriotic sacrifices and prompt decisions? I may justly say, that with 
our president every nerve is strung for action, and his bosom pants for 
fame, the fame of adding to his countries happiness and honor. See bis 
veto on the Lexington and Maysville turnpike road bill, together with other 
bills not approved of; and also his message at the opening of the present 
session of Congress. From these facts we know that he is resolved to 
pay off the national debt, and that during his administration, the system 
of internal improvement is at an end. Having gained this point, do I say 
too much, when, I say the battle is half won?—that southern principles 
begin to triumph ? Is not this system equally odious with the tarifl’policy ? 
With the abandonment of the one, have we not a right to hope for the 
destruction of the other ? Their advocates were ever the same—they are 
twin monsters, descended from an unholy alliance—fed by the same spoon 
and at the same mouth. They must perish together. Will the people 
of the west, if they cannot obtain the money arising from the tariff, for 
purposes of internal improvement, continue to tax themselves and us?— 
Even the veriest thief or robber, would prefer a life of honesty, if attended 
with like results, I would also refer the committee to the evidence pro¬ 
duced by the proceedings during the last session of Congress, to shew 
that this system is giving way, even in our national councils, independent¬ 
ly of the president’s veto. And for further argument on this point, as I 
have already consumed so much of your time, I will call your attention 
to the very able address of our senator in Congress, (Judge Smith) “to 
the good people of South Carolina.” This document is more conclusive 
than any thing I can say on the subject. I would also refer to that same 
document to prove, that from the indications already given, we may expect 
at no distant period, to obtain such a modification ot the tariff policy, as 
will be compatible with the spirit of our institutions and the interests of 
the south. The duty on tea, coffee, salt, molasses and cocoa, has been 
already reduced to the revenue system. This is a good beginning; our 
opponents are weakened—the policy has lost the sweetnivg of the mo¬ 
lasses to Louisiana and the seasoning ot the salt to New-York. Is not 
their allegiance to the system weakened? Did not New-York, by one 
of her most able men (Storrs) threaten the abandonment of the American 
System, if the duty on salt should be repealed ? 

This is a subject on which, I have observed, reflected and felt much: 
mv all is at stake. Those were my conclusions; and I am gratified to 
find that I am sustained by the opinions of a majority of our representa¬ 
tives in Congress, and also the whole southern delegation. Is not this a 
circumstance which should weigh with us? Fhcy arc the sentinels upon 
the watch tower of liberty—will they not warn us of approaching dangers 
before it is too late? 1 know they will: and the fact tnat they aic divi¬ 
ded in conclusions, should be to us satisfactory that the ptopiiety o! 
acting now is doubtful; and if doubtful, no prudent patiiot can act the 

issues are too important. . 

fn the progress of thisijebiitc, iniicli hns been alcuhiiew to muftine 

11 


L Jou ] 


and rouse us lo the madness of passion. We have been told that we are 
slaves; that our rights are trampled in the dust; that our petitions am! 
remonstrances have been spurned at with contempt; that our interests 
are at variance with those of our brethren of the north and west; that we 
have nothing to hope from their justice; that thev are a leagued, banded 
and corrupt majority—moved by no principle but that of gain, acknowledg¬ 
ing no constitutional criterion but profit; and that we are already frown¬ 
ing mutual defiance from the opposite banks of the Potomac. If these 
things are so, we have but one alternative, w hich, I presume was hinted at, 
when we were so eloquently told of the 28th of July last, a day so glorious 
in the annals of France; in the scenes ot which Paris played a proud 
part. If we believe things have come to this, let us say so directly, and 
at once. But I would beg gentlemen to remember, that with us, revolution 
would not be a matter of such facility as in France. Washington is not 
to the United Stales what Paris is to France. If it was, I might be pre¬ 
pared to sacrifice it to the establishment of our principles. But no! when 
we by force change our government, the war must reach to the home and 
the fireside of the most humble peasant. We all have an interest in the 
government for which we are ready to give our blood. Politicians nor 
parties cannot change its form, unless by the action of public opinion—if 
effected by violence, the destroying angel will smite more than the first 
born; nor shall the mark of the passover be on the lintel or side post of 
any man’s door. 1 


I admit that we have much cause of complaint against the general °o- 
\eminent; but I fiust our condition is not so bad as has been represented. 
Our object now is deliberation; cool deliberation, in which the passions 
should have no room to sway. Reason should hold the helm—and does 
she not say to us for the present, “ It is better to bear the ills we have, than 
fly to others we know not of ?” I, for one, am ready to listen to her councils. 
1 am not disposed to be satisfied with a determination, because it is hi^h 
toned ■end chivalrous, w hen I see its end must be destruction. I would 
ask gentlemen, if we have not reason to believe, that by precipitating the 
state at this time to a rapture with the general government, we slioifld be 
alone in the contest? Could Carolina, single handed, enter upon such a 
conflict, with even the hope of success? Let us deal honestly with our¬ 
selves and with each other. We are utterly unprepared for such a strug¬ 
gle. Could not a sing e frigate blockade the port of Charleston, and cut 
oft our commerce with the whole world, unless England would again 
receive us into her maternal embraces ? The navy of no other country 
could relieve us Such an alliance would be impossible. .My mini! 
shudders at the idea. I even now see before me, two members of this 
house, whose bodies bear the scars honorably testimonial of our resistance 
to her oppressions. the spirit of our fathers would, from the grave re¬ 
buke our madness-and their blood shed in vain would cry to heave- 
against us? Urn cannot be-let us wait-I believe we hare mudt 
expect from the good sense and patriotism of the American people. But 
f I am deceived in my confidence in public opinion, still we should de¬ 
ny; for, we cannot be ruined before the othei- southern states feel t at 
they too are oppressed. Yes! if our wrongs are as great as we sum osr 
them, il not redressed they must act and feel with lit Let this' be the 
case, and we have nothing to fear, either to onr own state or in the uni* “ 


L 107 J 

l lie advocates ot the tariff then, even if as bad as represented, would iind 
it to their interest to yield to us our just demand. Or, if they should still 
remain deal to the claims of consanguinity and the obligations of the con¬ 
stitutional compact, we should then have, and to a greater advantage, the 
last resort. 

1 presume from what has been said in the course of this debate, that the 
Potomac is looked to by some, if a dissolution should take place, as the 
dividing line between the governments of the north and south. Possibly 
it would be so: but even of this we have no certainty. When the proud 
barque is wrecked, no man can foresee where the fury of the tempest will 
permit the shattered fragments to rest. May not the western divide from 
die atlantic states, or each state go off to itself ? We shall then present a 
spectacle similar to the petty principalities of Italy, and will be reduced 
to such a condition ol feebleness, anarchy and blood, as shall make us wil¬ 
ling to seek protection and rest in the arms of the most abject despotism. 
Such is the probable consequence; for I consider nothing that has ever 
been said more true, than the declaration of Washington in his farewell 
address to the American people, when he remarks, that “ united we stand, 
divided we fall.” No! not even the word of God, when he spoke by the 
voice ol his prophets to man, was more true, than “ united w r e stand, divid¬ 
ed we fall.” This was manifestly the opinion of Mr. Jefferson, when he 
wrote to Mr. Giles of Virginia, fie there speaks of disunion as a thing 
not to be thought of; and tells us that if it has a beginning, we may go on 
dividing and sub-dividing until we come to an unit. But admitting that 
the Potomac could be made the line of division between a northern and 
southern republic; I have no hesitation in saying that it will be one of the 
greatest calamities that could befall us. I am satisfied, that as much of our 
happiness and prosperity as a people, results from our geographical position 
in reference to the rest of the world, as from the excellence of our political 
institutions. A changed 1 , our relations to each other, would destroy the ef¬ 
fect of this locality, and of necessity, involve a change in our institutions 
themselves. Situated as we now are, all our neighboring nations are weak; 
and we are separated from the stronger nations of Europe, by the mighty 
barriers of the Atlantic. 

But if we should form a northern and southern republic; although we 
might be weak in reference to other nations, we would be strong in refer¬ 
ence to each other. Warned by the experience of other nations in every 
age of the world, we should be led to the formation of stronger govern¬ 
ments. Armies would be required for defence and protection—the ex¬ 
ecutive departments would require to be strengthened—a government 
assimilating itself to monarchy would be the consequence—wars w r ould 
become more frequent—taxes would accumulate—the people would be 
oppressed—and all the beauty of our institutions would gradually fade 
away. 

I am aware, that in these opinions 1 differ from many. We have been 
told in this debate, that our government, as administered, is the worst on 
earth ; that no people have ever submitted to taxationsooppressive as that 
now imposed on us; that the voice of desolation and mourning is heard 
throughout our state ; that the owl now inhabits those splendid edifices in 
the lower country, once the abode of affluence, intelligence and a gener¬ 
ous, splendid hospitality; that man can no longer there meet his fellow 


[ 108 J 

around the festive board, nor is the song of beauty and ot joy any more to 
be heard in those princely halls; that we arc reduced to a state worse than 
colonial vassalage ; that an evil, greater than the blast of the Sorocco has 
passed over our once beautiful, and happy, and honored and much loved 
state. And all this is attributed to the tariff. Bad as I believe this accursed 
policy is, and determined as I am, to resort to every necessary and proper 
means, to procure its repeal; yet let us stdl look to tilings as they are. It 
cannot be the tariff which has so soon given wealth and affluence to the 
north, and produced effects so fatal to the south. No! Tiie decline in the 
low country is attributable toother causes; in a great degree to the unhealth¬ 
iness of the climate; the malaria. I am at least, certain it is not the ta¬ 
riff, unless the laws of nature have been reversed ; unless the effect has 
preceded the cause. Is there a member of this committee who does not 
know, that this desolation existed before 1824, when the tariff’ laws, of 
which we first complained, were enacted P 

It has also been attempted to be proved to the cotton and rice planters 
ol this state, that they pay forty-five per cent, to the general government, 
on all the cotton and rice which they export. 

I am a cotton planter, and I know I pay no such duty. I may be de¬ 
ceived. But I am as certain that this is too strong a statementof the case, 
as I am that I exist. 1 had thought the doctrine, that the consumer sub¬ 
stantially paid the duty, nearly as well established in the science of politi¬ 
cal economy, as that in mathematics it was axiomatically true that twice 
two was equal to four. I have said, however, that I would avoid this 
part of the subject; resting its true exposition on the arguments already 
made by others; and I feel it due to the respectful hearing which you 
have given me, not to trespass much longer on your patience. Perhaps 
my remarks might here properly be brought to a close. I certainly did 
not anticipate the necessity to which I am reduced. I could not have 
supposed, that it ever would have fallen to my lot, to endeavor to awaken 
the principles of patriotism in the Legislative hall of South Carolina: 
that I should be called upon to remind her brave and chivalrous sons of 
their allegiance to their government—of their attachments to the union ; 
that I should be compelled to defend our common country against my 
countrymen. In this debate, that country has been spurned and spit upon. 
We have been told that our government is the most positive despotism 
on earth—and that our people are the most oppressed. Can this be true ? 
—has my life been all one delusion? When in the midst of revelry and 
of songs, the joyous acclamations of freemen, and the thunder of artillery 

I have celebrated her triumphs and her glory—was I deluded?_were 

manacles then upon my hands, and did I bow at the feet of despotic pow- 
C1 ■ . ,^ as I a slave." No! I was then as I now am, a freeman ; a citizen 
ot this happy, vast and powerful republic; an American citizen; and 1 
ti ust I shall ever feel as I now do, a Roman’s pride of citizenship. I 
conjure this committee, by all the obligations of pliilantlirophv and patriot¬ 
ism, to consider candidly this matter; to look well to the blessings we en- 
joy as well as the evils we suffer; to compare our situation with that of 
ouier nations of the earth,in the spirit of honest inquiry: and if our people 
ore not more prosperous, free and happy than the citizens of those coun¬ 
tries, 1 will consent to any change. Give me a precedent, which ifadopt- 
ed, would better our condition, and I am r<*dy to follow it out. But can 


[ 109 ] 

such a pecedeut be found? 1 think not. i! we look to Great .Britain, a 
nation the most free, enlightened and happy in Europe, we see a king, a 
nobility, a clergy, and worst of all, a people ground to the very dust by a 
system of taxation which is intolerable, and a national debt which they can 
never pay* This is the best model of government Europe can afford.-— 
Could we change our institutions for those? Would we prefer a chief 
magistrate, forced upon us by bayonets, or priestcraft, or kingly divine 
right to a president, chosen by ourselves in the unlimited exercise oi our 
own free will, and who, like the benevolent author of our being, the great 
ruler of the universe, governs us by love and a sense ot patriotic duty t 
Or (to tve desire a proud, haughty, arrogant and supercilious nobility to 
lord it over us ? One of the first lessons we inculcate upon the minds 
of our children is, that all men are born equal—that they are freemen, 
the proudest title that man can bear—we acknowledge no superior but 
God—we make the mind and heart the measure ot the man—with us 
there is no magic in a name-—we enquire what men are, not what tneir 
ancestors have been—we know that the hereditary aristocracy ot every 
country is principally made up of the worthless sons of worthy sires- 
that they are the supporters of power, and the oppressors ot the people. 
We are blessed that we have none of them. Nor have we an established 
church or clergy. Here persecution kindles no fires tor the trial of ortho¬ 
doxy—nor does she water the earth with the blood of unbelievers. Ouis 
is a religion which leans upon no arm ot flesh—but one which, ue Bust, 
will irradiate the darkness ot death—will Jidentify the memory ot the 
past with the hope of the future—and will connect the last agonies ot 
time with the first raptures of eternity. These are some ot the leading lea- 
turesofour institutions. May I not, without the fear of contradiction, 
say, that in this country, all the necessities ot man are provided tor—that 
asylums are every where erected tor pauperism, and hospitals tor disease 

_that all the sources of satisfaction are open to our citizens and that 

every delight is offered to their hearts ? We have glory, wealth and hap¬ 
piness-compared with most other nations, our condition is one ot perfect 

^Iwould ask this committee, it" these our beautiful and happy institutions, 
on which rest not only our own national character and glory, but the 
hopes of mankind are to be permitted now to perish? is man destined 
ever to be the slave of legal forms ? Is liberty but an ignis fatuous gleam 
which is ever to be pursued, but never to be grrfsped ? i trust not—1 
believe that man is capable of self government—it is for us, however, to 
□rove the fact—it is for us to assert the dignity of his nature, and shew 
nis capacity for self control. God grant, that the predictions of our ene¬ 
mies may not be fulfilled—but that our government, the worlds ast hope, 
may continue forever in her onward course ; and that her example may be 
K enstaved nations of the earth, like the pillar of cloud by day, and 
of fire by night; conducting them to happiness and ireedom. 

I know that the opinions and hopes which 1 have advanced, will be con¬ 
sidered by many, as those of passive obedience and non-resistance, and that 
they separate me politically from many for whose personal friendship I have, 
the highest regard. In adopting them I may be wrong; but it wrong, I claim 

in he°honest If I know my own heart, no earthly consideration could 

Lduoe me to utter, on this Jrject, one word, which I did not most con- 


l 


scientiously believe—1 may be wrong in head, but God knows 1 am right 
at heart—l love Carolina even with the fondness of a woman’s love—if she 
has one son who should be attached to her above ail others, I am that son. 
It was here that my father when poor, the “dew upon his thin robe being 
heavy and chill,” abandoning European oppressions and despotisms, found 
an asylum and a home—it was here that lie was received and welcomed, 
prospered and was honored—here too rest his remains. Even the very 
savage of the wilderness loves the country that contains the graves of his 
fathers. These are circumstances which should attach me—but there are 
others, it possible, stronger than these. Here is the home of my mother', 
my brethren and my children—here is every association that is near my 
heart—all that I have ever loved on earth—here is all that I have,all that 
1 am, and all that I shall probably ever be. Such are the pledges which I 
bring of my love, the hostages 1 offer for my fidelity—here in this very 
hall, I look around me, and see the faces of those whom I have known from 
my earliest infancy, the companions of my college life—and he who preced¬ 
ed in this debate was even my classmate, and is endeared to me by the dou¬ 
ble tie ot friend and countryman. Can it be necessary that I should here 
say, that I feel to my native state a patriot’s devotion P No ! I could as 
soon prove recreant to the mother who bore me; to the bosom which sus¬ 
tained me. My all is with Carolina—with her I hope to live; for her per¬ 
haps 1 too might be prepared to die. I can now say, at least, if the time 
shall ever come which will try the hearts and hands of men, l will be with 
her, even if it should be “ when death’s brief pang is quickest, and the bat¬ 
tles wreck lies thickest ’—yes ! to her I owe my first and paramount alle¬ 
giance; the allegiance of the heart—when she, by her constitutional author¬ 
ities shall have determined on her course, I will pledge my moral and phy¬ 
sical energies to her success. I will then nail my colours to the mast; if 
necessary go down with the ship. But God grant that this necessity may 
never come ; and that the union may remain unshaken, amidst the vicissi¬ 
tudes of time and the desolations of empires. If the American people are 
-rue to themselves this will be. Our fields shall ever brighten under their 
golden harvests; our commerce shall press the bosom of every sea ; our ar¬ 
mies shall hurl back the invaders strength; and our fleets, whitening the 
heavens with their canvass, shall sweep the ocean with the thunder of their 
cannon. I his is what we have done, and what we now are, in the morning 
ol our national existence. W hat mind will be able to calculate our power, 
when we shall have attained to the full maturity of our strength? When 
all the departments of industry and of science shall be full? when hun¬ 
dreds of millions shall crowd our territory. To tell it, would require that 
tiie tongue should be touched with prophetic fire—even the imagination 
vvith all her creative powers can but illy define the out-line of this^miglitv 
picture; our reasonable expectations. ° J 

Oh God ! let my country live to see this looked for consummation, in 
which all the fond hopes of the patriot’s heart shall be lost in the fullness 
of fruition; and that we, as one people, may go forward, gloriously and 
forever, “ with freedom’s soil beneath our feet, and freedom’s banner •” 
the broad and glorious banner of stars and of stripes, the banner of the 
union, proudly “streaming o’er us.” 


L Ml 3 

T. T. PLAYER’S SPEECH. 


Mr. Chairman : 

It is said of one of the Emperors, that he had proscribed from his pa- 

® cant t Jp. busts °* tvvo t!ie most esteemed and honored among the Ho- 

intp n nrl7 f l l e K XC QS10n ’ m ? te f d ° fbein £ 1111 indi S nit J> as it was manifestly 
in tended to be 1S remarked upon and regarded as the most triumphant 

^,nnT ?n ^i° th ( ei . r '7 0rt , h * h cannot be much more a distinction to be 
+ , a K m tbls debate tban lt \ vas ip the procession of Tiberius. The 
kernes upon which the discussion has necessarily ranged, have long been 
iami liar m this hall and to this public, and one who touches the question 
at all, is either condemned to touch it with the hand of a sciolist, or to rin- 
the changes on topics as unprofitable as they are stale. I am, however too 
" e peisuadeti ot one truth in polemics to permit even this debate to es¬ 
cape me. Much passes for argument here, as elsewhere, merely because 
it is unanswered, and hence it is not unfrequent that gentlemen obtain a 
victory m a controversy of this character, more by default of their adversa¬ 
ries, than by the intrinsic strength of their own efforts. If defeat is wrought 
upon toe cause of convention, it will not be because I, as one of the sen- 
tme s, nave siept upon my post; for although the contest must at last be 
settled by an array of numbers, and not by the power of individual com¬ 
batants, our fall vviil not be the less gallant because the ensigns of liberty 
aiC displayed, while the responsibility of those engaged in our discomfiture 
must be greatly increased by the energy of our defence. 

I his debate in its progress, has undergone so many changes, that it has 
become matter of grave consideration, to know what in truth we are dis¬ 
cussing.—Not certainly the merits or defections of partizan leaders, as some 
gentlemen seem to imagine. In discussing the expediency or impolicy of 
assembling in convention, what does it make, for or against the issue, that 
distinguished individuals have differed from each other or been inconsis¬ 
tent with themselves P ‘As well might you turn aside to pursue the incen- 
dianes when a city is in flames. That Mr. Calhoun, or Mr. Lowndes, or 
. ; Cheves, or any other gentleman of talent or distinction, has thought 

in this way or the other, or that they have changed with the times or with¬ 
out the times, is matter for their consideration and not the deliberations 
of this committee. That the President has been pleased to take views 
which may be esteemed wise, of the reverse, of the tariff acts, is matter af¬ 
fecting his present or perhaps his future reputation; but that it has the 
slightest pertinence to the debate which is in progress, I deny most positively, 
fo a mind disposed to take opinions upon trust and to defer implicitly to 
the accepted tenets of sages or “ saints in politics,” it may be satisfactory 
to enquire into the glosses and crede which each in his turn may assume 
oi profess; but to a mind deeply imbued with the subject and earnestinits 
pursuit of truth, no one consideration, but its own unbiased convictions 
can act with a feather’s weight in inclining it to an opinion or its contrary 
.—Discarding then all impertinent and immaterial discussion, what is the 
subject under debate ? 

ihe grounds which I take (for I assume to be the exposit or ofmy own 
opinions only) is ,that by the passage of tariff acts for protection, Congress 
has been guilty of perverting an express trust in the constitution; that this 
“violation of perversion” is “deliberate, palpable, and dangerous” and 


[ 112 ] 

that it is “not only the right but the duty of the state, to interpose in its 
highest sovereign capacity, for the purpose of arresting the evil . 
these issues 1 shall direct the attention ot the committee* 

And first, “that tariff acts passed for protection, are perversions of a 
written trust in the constitution.” 1 take it for granted, it is sufficiently 
obvious that protection was the purpose for which these acts were passed. 
Judge Baldwin avowed it in 1828—Mr. Mallary has done so time and 
ao-ain—President Jackson has been equally explicit in the avowals which 
he has made of his adhesion, and it has become matter of common fame 
that this was the sole and manifest purpose ot all the adherents of the 
system—a purpose obviously variant from the defined trust for which 
the taxing pow r er was conferred—Every perversion ot a power is a fraud— 
and every question of fraud is made up of intention and fact. The decla¬ 
rations to which I have adverted, establish the intention: the actings and 
doings with a view to that purpose, are, therefore, all that remain to be no¬ 
ticed^ to establish the charge. But the question arises, may the Legisla¬ 
ture, in making up the issue of fraud, go beyond the acts and the constitution 
in its enquiry ? To this end, the Legislature is not hedged in by the strict 
rules which* 1 restrain the powers of a court of law, and admitting that it 
were, no tribunal on earth is estopped by legal subtleties in exposing a 
fraud. The established rule of investigation, and the only one which puts 
limits to the inquiry, is that the tribunal examining the charge shall confine 
itself to such evidence as is furnished by the declarations and acts of the 
conspirators at the time the fraud was in progress. To show the inten¬ 
tion I have adverted to the declarations, not of those who were “art and 
part” merely, but of those who were the very head and front of the mea¬ 
sure, and to show that that purpose w'as attempted to be concealed, it is 
only necessary to recur to the face of the several acts, covering the fraud 
under the forms of the constitution—Upon paper, and as far as the ques¬ 
tion can be reached by philological tests, the tariff acts are a body of revenue 
law's, purporting to be framed with a view to raise money for the exigencies 
of government, and tried by such evidence only as is furnished by inspection, 
they would be pronounced constitutional—With the accompanying decla¬ 
rations, however, of the corrupt authors and agents in their formation, the 
conclusion is irresistible, that although framed under the taxing clause, 
they were intended, not to raise money, but mainly “ to protect domestic 
industry against foreign competition.”* The point necessarily presented 
by this state of facts then is, can acts framed under the clause in the con¬ 
stitution giving the right to levy money by imposts, be framed, consistently 
with the terms of that clause, for any other substantive end, than that which 
is there expressed ? That end, as I said before, was to raise money, and 
the term “ collect,” shows that to be the only object intended to be effected 
by the power used directly and in good faith—Acts, therefore, such as the 
tariff acts for protection, passed under that clause with any other object 
than to “collect,” or raise, or levy money under whatever shifts or devi¬ 
ces their purposes may be concealed, or by whatever colourable conformity 
they may adapt themselves to the text of the constitution, are frauds upon, 
and therefore violations of, the trust which is there expressed. 

The attempt of the member from Charleston (Mr. Huger,) to impugn 


See Baldwin’s Speech, 1828. 







[ lid ] 


the argument by reference to the clause giving power to Congress to 
“ regulate commerce,” is itself an abandonment of the controversy 
on the impost clause ; for if he was not conscious that the argument could 
not be sustained on that clause, why place it on another ? The power 
evidently must result, if it exist at all, either from one clause or the 
other—not from both—and the member from Charleston being constrain¬ 
ed to fall in the end on the clause giving power to regulate commerce, 
we must regard him as having made his election to rest the argument 
there—and in courtesy to him, ff not for the conviction of the committee, 
we must give some slight examination to that clause. I understand the end 
for which that clause was inserted to be, to enable Congress to foster 
commerce, by laying down such rules as would enure to the advantage 
of our commercial relations. But allowing, that in pursuing that end, it 
might have recourse to indirect means with a view to attain it, still the 
question arises, does a specific power to regulate commerce carry with it 
the substantive, independent right to regulate manufactures; for this is 
the right now claimed. An end which cannot be reached directly, cannot 
rightfully be obtained by an obliquity in the means, it follows, then, that 
if the power claimed cannot be exercised under the impost clause, it can¬ 
not be exercised at all; and upon this we are asked by the member from 
Charleston (Mr. Huger,) if these acts are fraudulent, how far are they sol’ 
“ If a fraud has been committed, show its extent, for Congress prima 
facie have the right to lay imposts, and those who charge a fraud in the 
exercise of a legitimate power must not only show its existence, but its 
extent.” These acts are entire —there is no process oflegislative analysis 
by which the alloy can be separated from the metal; the fraud it it exist 
at all, must pervade every part and contaminate every part, and there¬ 
fore the very admission that the acts are at all objectionable on grounds’ 
of fraud, precludes gentlemen from defending them, or any yurt of them,0TL 
the ground that they may be justified under a bona fide exercise of a power 
granted, if a question had been submitted to the honorable gentleman in 
the exercise of his late judicial functions, whether or no an entire contract 
could be good in part and bad in part, he would have treated the very 
question as a want of proper courtesy to his station—yet the acts under 
consideration are not only entire acts , but entire contracts too (for every 
statute is in essence a compact) and if contaminated in part by fraud, 
must be wholly void and inoperative. But there is another satisfactory 
answer already given by the member trom Richland (Mr. Pieston,) to 
this argument, to wit, if those who have been art and part to this fraud 
claim to be screened on the ground that their acts are in pait fail and 
bona fide, it is they and not we who must show how far they deserve that 


p | ja 

It will be perceived that I do not deny to Congress the power to protect 
manufactures—but only the power to protect them by imposts laid with 
a view to that end. The power to encourage “ useful arts,” (among which 
manufactures stand pre-eminent) by patents, is clearly in Congress; but 
the clause conferring the power is cm affirmative pregnant, and of course 

exclusive of ail other means of protection. 

But ao-ain—the right to protect manufactures is not only a perfect 
i<rht in Congress, so far as the end may be obtained by patents, but it is 

° inchoate right in the states, by imposts with the consent of Congress 


on 


15 


f 144 ] 

under the 2nd clause ot the 10th Sect, of tiie 1st. Art. ol the Constitution* 

In stating this argument I can do nothing more than I have been oblig¬ 
ed to do through the whole debate, condense and arrange the labors of otn- 
crs. Imposts can only be laid for one ol three purposes-—1st. 1 lie execu¬ 
tion of inspection laws—2d. lor revenue—or bd. fur protection. I he 
clause under review could not have contemplated an appeal to Congress 
by a state, to be permitted to lay imposts, for either of the two first purpo¬ 
ses ; for by the words of the clause, a state may lay imposts for the execu¬ 
tion of its inspection laws without the consent of Congress; and it is part 
of the clause also, that the proceeds of imposts laid by a state shad be paid 
over into the national treasury; excluding the idea that the appeal to Con¬ 
gress which the clause contemplates, could be for revenue purposes. It 
tallows, as of course then, unless gentlemen can show some fourth purpose 
for which an impost may be laid, that the contemplated object for the ap¬ 
plication of the state for permission to lay the impost, must be, to protect 
her manufactures. This construction is sustained by the consideration 
that it consists with equity, that a state should protect its own manufac¬ 
tures and that it should not lay the whole confederacy under tribute for 
that purpose. 

It is said, however, by the member from Charleston, (Mr. Huger,) that 
if the tariff acts are violations of the constitution, they are not “ deliberate, 
palpable, and dangerous” violations, and not coming within these words 
of the Virginia resolutions, which are brought before the committee with 
the force of authority, the state has no right to interpose for the purpose of 
arresting their operation. I shall not argue that these acts are deliberate 
violations of the constitution, for if they are not, it is a new feature in the 
character of fraud, that it can be committed on sudden heat! But I con¬ 
tend that they are also palpable violations of the constitution, and if the 
light to interpose with a view to arrest their operation depends upon the 
fact of their being palpable invasions, the right is complete on that ground. 
The difference between that which is physically and that which is moral¬ 
ly palpable, is obvious. The one is tangibly and intuitively—the other, 
only analytically and inductively clear . The inquiry whether a fraud 
is palpable, is a question, whether it can be detected upon fair induc¬ 
tion, and whether we can get with a reasonable degree of certainty 
at the fraud, by an exercise of the ordinary means for investigating the 
facts and circumstances which establish it. Whether this has been done, 
is a matter of which the committee must judge. If it has not, then I take 
the ground that concealment is a necessary badge of fraud, and the fact 
that these invasions of the reserved rights of the state have been furtive, 
only renders them the more dangerous, (their insidious character disarm¬ 
ing vigilance and eluding detection,) and instead of diminishing, but serves 
to increase the necessity for resistance. Then, are the tariff acts danger¬ 
ous violations of the constitution ? Every violation of the constitution is 
dangerous as a precedent, if not otherwise. But these acts are espe¬ 
cially dangerous as the substratum of the most stupendous system of 
fraud and imposition that has ever disgraced the history of legislation— 
I allude to the American system—which in all its parts is based upon this 
extortionate and unauthorized tax; for without the taxing power first ex¬ 
ercised, no violations of the constitution in which money is an agent, can 
be committed. But it is dangerous of itself as tending to the prostration 


r ii5 ] 


ot commerce—as encouraging swindling and speculation—as making the 
regular capitalist and manufacturer the victims of adventurers upon mere 
legislative exclusion, and as prostrating the energies, paralizing the com¬ 
mercial enterprize,and impairing the commercial confidence ot the country. 

The committee will perceive that in coming to the conclusions to which 
my argument on the constitution has brought me, I have studiously reject¬ 
ed all foreign aid, in expounding that instrument, as unsatisfactory in the 
main, and peculiarly inapposite in the matter under review. Regard¬ 
ing the outrage as a 'palpable invasion of the letter of the constitution, 1 
am constrained to have recourse to such modes of interpretation as consist 
only with a correct exposition of the obvious import of the words ol the in¬ 
strument, and to repudiate all collateral aids, as foreign to its terms, and 
as instead of going to explain an ambiguity (for there is none) tending to 
supercede the positive terms and provisions ol the deed itself by parol aver¬ 
ment, (and that too subject to the objections of being mainly “ex parte,’ 
frequently under bias, always upon mere declaration, and often conflict¬ 
ing,} to raise a trust variant from the obvious import of the words oj the 
deed, which 1 am not to tell the member from Charleston, at least,is against 


law as well as against reason. 

We are told Mr. Chairman, that admitting these acts to be violations of 
the constitution, they can only be arrested by nullification, and that “eo 
instanti” the acts are nullified, the state is out ol the pale ol.the.confede¬ 
racy. Although it is begging the question to say, that unconstitutional acts 
of Congress can only be arrested by nullification, and although the ques¬ 
tion as to the right ol a state to nullify an act of Congress, is improperly 
interposed between the committee and the main subject under debate, 
with a view to distract our councils; yet, as I am sure that a state has the 
constitutional right to declare an unconstitutional act of Congress null, 
and yet to remain in the confederacy, I will turn from what I re¬ 
gard the direct course of the argument, for one moment, to defend this odi¬ 
ous and reviled doctrine. Whatt hen is the principle asserted ? It is, it I 
understand it, that the state has the right to declare, and the consequent 
power to enforce the declaration, (for ail sovereign rights are perfect) that 
acts vassed bu Congress against the constitution, are “ unauthontative , 
void, and of no force” It will hardly be denied by gentlemen, that where 
sovereigns are in controversy upon political rights, and there is no ap¬ 
pointed umpire to settle the dispute, each party being equal in degree, lias 
a right to judge “ as well of the infraction, as ol the mode and measure ol 
redress.” There* are numerous possible cases of such controversies un¬ 
der the constitution—For example, suppose that Congress, in readjus>- 
inu- the representation under the present census, should introduce a cl 
into the act by which we are to be deprived of a representation lor three- 
fifths of our black population. Here is an invasion ot an impoitant po¬ 
litical v\gbt but where is the tribunal to determine the contiom sy 

How could the parties come before the supreme court' before it 

they were to elect this tribunal as an umpire, and bring thei point belotert 

bv consent upon a feigned issue, or m any othet toini, y 

bound in good faith to abide its decision But U "^^nder the'‘conlditu - 
rflect it an umpire, it cannot obtain jurisdiction ot it under the constuu 

tion; for cases, are controversies,about property, or private, cwi '. nghti 

no contest in regard to private rights could arise on the out. age, from 


t 116 J 

which the court could lay hold of it, "with a view to relief. The mistaken 
idea that a state may become a party in the federal court upon a disputed 
question of political right, is derived from a misapprehension, 1st. of the 
character of the tribunal, and 2d. of the character in which states nuke 
their appearance as parties, plaintiffs or defendants, in suits to be deter¬ 
mined by the court. The court is a civil and not a political tribunal, and 
the states in appearing before it as parties to a civil suit , apppar there in 
no other or higher relation than as bodies corporate, contesting an invaded 
franchise, or asserting no higher rights than attach to such bodies— rights 
merely civil. The controversy put, cannot be a case under the constitu¬ 
tion which the supreme court could reach, and therefore the parties must 
oi course determine for themselves. But again : Congress can confer no 
title of nobility—suppose it were to pas^ an act that each senator should 
wear a ribbon and be styled Earl—how could a case of law or equity arise 
between the state and federal government on this act, the outrage being 
merely political? In these and many like cases there can be no common 
umpire, because the powers of the supreme court defined in the constitu¬ 
tion could never reach them. 

But in regard to the outrage under consideration the practical relations 
of the state and federal governments are “pari passu” with the cases just 
put; for admitting that the jurisdiction of the supreme court could reach it, 
that jurisdiction ^forestalled and ousted by a fraud predicated on and ta¬ 
king advantage of one of its decisions. It does not become Congress then to 
complain (even admitting that we allowed thejurisdiction of the court to be 
competent) that we contestthe reference of these acts to the supreme court, 
when in the very passage of them, they have practised a fraud, arresting the 
court from the exercise of its regular functions. By the case of Fletcher and 
Peck, the court determined, that it could not look beyond the caption of the 
law, for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the Legislature, and 
therefore the intention, the “corpus delicti*’ of the fraud, cannot be reach¬ 
ed and of course cannot be corrected. It is said, however, that “ eo instan- 
ti” the state annuls the law, it is without the pale of the confederacy. 
There is a very sensible distinction between annulling a law of Conoress 
and declaring an unconstitutional act of Congress null. The first is’evi- 
dently revolution, and the last directly the reverse —That which is a law 
must conform to the constitution, and, therefore, an interposition by the 
state to arrest its operation is arresting the government. On the contrary 
an unconstitutional act of Congress being subversive of the compact de¬ 
claring that fact, and accompanying the declaration with,suitable means to 
render it effective, so far from subverting, goes directly to sustain the go¬ 
vernment i ® 

Some grounds have been taken in the course of the debate not strictly 
in justification, but in palliation of the tarilfacts, which however are er¬ 
roneous and which should not therefore go unnoticed. It is said by the 
member from Charleston that, if these acts are violations of the constitu¬ 
tion, the burthens cannot be exactly estimated, and that is urged as a 
reason for forbearance. I apprehend this is a perfectly immaterial 
issue, and I am not disposed to expend my force in a contest with sha¬ 
dows. If a convention were to sit with a view to redress that convention 
would not be composed of arithmeticians. In truth, Mr. Chairman I 
cannot see how gentlemen propose to settle controversies on constitu- 


1. in J 

t iv'iial liberty by arithmetical calculation, or by tale and weight, unless 
upon the principle on which the clergy once decided questions of theolo¬ 
gy, by the cube root! 

We are told by the same gentleman, that prices have not been increas¬ 
ed permanently by the successive tariff acts. If I show that the neces¬ 
sary tendency of the system is to enhance prices, permanently, I think X 
shall have shown, that any temporary depression or equality in prices 
since the passage ol the acts, is not to be referred to the system itself, but 
to causes which have no connection with its regular operation. There are 
two meanings to the word price, which I think necessary to be noticed* 
in order to a proper understanding of the subject.—1st. the money price 
which is the cost of the article in market overt—2d th e real price which is 
the cost of production. It is obvious that the first is not materially affected 
by the last, or at all events, is more dependant upon collateral and inciden¬ 
tal causes than on the material used, the labor employed, or the capital en¬ 
gaged in making the article. The price of an article in market may be 
affected by the rate of exchange—bankruptcy—competition—false rumours 
—smuggling—the auction system—war—non-intercourse—the apprecia¬ 
tion or depreciation of currency—increased demand and supply, and an infi¬ 
nite variety of causes,which it would be as impossible to enumerate or foresee, 
as to calculate the rise and fall of a barometer for the next half century. 
The actual price, however, never fluctuates but as the elements of price 
which go to make up the cost of production fluctuate, that is to say, the 
tvages of labor, the profits of stock, and the cost of the raw material, and 
these remaining equal at any two given points of time, “ceteris paribus,” 
the prices must be identical. And it is to be observed, that the average 
of prices in the long run, (whatever incidental causes may interpose to 
vary them for a time) must in two countries, depend upon the relative 
cost of production, and therefore, that when the cost of production must 
be permanently less in one country than another, the general average of 
prices must be proportionably lower. The following statement will show 
with definitive certainty the relative costs of production in England and 
the United States. “ From the testimony of our own manufacturers taken 
“before the committee on manufactures, at the last session of Congress, 
“ (1827-28,) we refer particularly to the testimony of Mr. Dexter and Mr. 
“ Shepperd, it is apparent that the lowest average of manufacturing labor, 
“ is $6 per week in one of the factories, and §4,50 cents in the other, for 
“grown male hands, working 11 hours a day. By reference to the high- 
“ est British authorities on this subject it will be seen that the very highest 
“average for similar labor is §2,66 a week in some parts of Great Britain, 
“and § 1,66 in others, for grown male hands, working from 16 to 18 hours 
“per day. Taking into calculation the longer continuance and superior 
“ productiveness of a day’s labor in Great Britain, it may be fairly set 
“ down, as the result of a general comparison, that manufacturing labor in 
“the United States is 150 per cent, higher than it is in Great Britain. 

“In forming an estimate of the comparative profits of capital in the two 
“ countries, we cannot resort to a better criterion than the market rate of 
“interest. We may safely assert that any amount of money can be ob¬ 
tained in Great Britain, upon good private securities, at an interest of 5 
“ per cent, whereas, there is not, we believe, a state in the union, in 
“which a money lender cannot obtain 6 per cent, with the same kind ol 


L 113 ] 

“ security. Taking these data as the basis of comparative estimate of the 
« profits of capital in the two countries, it results that they are 100 per 
“cent, higher in the United States than they are in Great Britain. 

“ When such a difference 's this exists between wages and profits in 
“ England and the United States, the latter cannot expect, unless in few 
“cases,to manufacture as cheaply as Great Britain. In many instances 
“the whole value of the raw material would not be sufficient to make up 
“ the difference in price caused by difference in wages and profits. Thus 
“ to take an example in cotton fabrics, using again the calculation made 
“ in the Southern Review: Assuming the cost of the raw material to be 
“25 per cent higher at the British than at the American factories, (a very 
“high estimate,) we have all the elements for calculating the comparative 
“cost of producing cotton manufactures in the two countries. It only 
“ remains for us to ascertain the proportion which each of these elements 
“bears to the aggregate of the manufacture. The best informed states- 
“men and statistical writers of Great Britain, concur in the statement, 
“ that dividing the average cost of producing cotton manufactures into 
“ 36 parts, 9 of those parts consist of the raw material, 15 of the wages of 
“ labor, and 12 of the profits of capital. What then, let us enquire, will 
“it cost to produce in the United States a manufacture, which it will 
“ cost 12 cents a yard to manufacture in Great Britain. Of the British 
“cost of producing such an article, according to the above proportion, 3 
“cents would be the cost of the raw material, 5 cents the wages of labor, 
“and 4 cents the profits of capital. The American cost of producing the 
“same description of manufacture, upon the grounds already established, 
“would be 22 3-4 cents, of which 12 1-2 would be the wages of labor, 8 
“ cents the profits of capital, and only 2 3-4 cents the cost of the raw ma¬ 
terial. It is thus shown upon principles which we hold to be incontes- 
“ tible, that even assuming an equal perfection in machinery, and an equal 
“degree of skill in the use of it, the cost of producing cotton manufac- 
“ tures in the United States, alter deducting 10 per cent, for the superior 
“cheapness of our water power, will be 80 per cent, higher than they are 
“ in Great Britain . It will be perceived that the wages of labor alone 
" amount to more than the entire cost of production in Great Britain. It 
“ is. also worthy of notice, that the difference of the cost of the raw mate¬ 
rial, in the two countries, gives to the American manufacturer an ad- 
“ vantage of only 3-4 of a cent, in the yard, over the British, to counter¬ 
balance an advantage on the other side, of 11 1-2 cents (more than three 
“ times the value of the raw material) in the wages of labor and profits of 
“ capital.”*' 

We are told, however, that the tax being paid by the consumer, and 
not by the producer, the plantation states only suffer in common with 
other consumers, and hence that the common idea that we suffer in pro¬ 
portion to the interest which we have in foreign commerce, is a common 
error—To me, if not to others, names are nothing. It is immaterial by 
what name the plantation states are the devoted victims to this fraud; 
it cannot be denied that they are subsidised by a tax falling exclusively 
on foreign commerce, to the extent to which they are interested in that 
commerce. The duty is paid by the article and not by the agent y and of 


\ 


* 4th No. Southern Review, 588—9. 





t 119 j 

course the burthen lulls upon the commodity and not upon those through 
whose hands the exchange is effected. The average exports of the Uni¬ 
ted States are computed at 58 millions annually ; the average exports of the 
plantation states at 35 millions. Imports and exports must be equal in a 
series of years—and hence an average duty of 45 per cent, on imports 
must render the plantation states, (without looking beyond the mere rela¬ 
tive proportion of imports,) who are the meritorious cause of an impor¬ 
tation to the annual amount of 35 millions, tributary in the proportion of 
35 to 23. Whatever ot this duty is paid on this part of the imposts 
(the 35 millions) by the merchant, he is able to levy again, on the consumer, 
with an additional per cent, taxed on the amount of the impost; but the 
planter is without recourse. He can make no reprisal; for the tax, so far 
as he is a consumer, ends in himself. It may be asked, however, if the 
merchant too, is not to a considerable extent a consumer? Granted—but 
if he is enabled to become a consumer, by virtue of a commerce ivliich is 
sustained by the 'productions of the planter, does he not consume as the 
agent of the planter, and is he not able, in his subsequent dealings with 
the planter, to shift the entire burthen of his own consumption to the 
shoulders of the planter, by taxing it on such commodities as he vends to 
him ? So that in this contest for indemnity and escape, the planter is made 
the scapegoat, upon whose head the whole burthens of the merchant are 
made to fall. But what becomes of the domestic manufacturer in the scuf¬ 
fle ? He too has his recourse—for if he consumes the dutied articles, he 
is enabled to sell his own productions with an indirect bounty of 45 per 
cent, to the planter, through the agency of the merchant, and admitting 
his capacity to glut the home market, (which he professes to do, and ex¬ 
port over and above) he too is rid of the entire burthen. 

The proper ground upon which to place this argument, however, is the 
ground upon which it was put by Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, during the 
last session of Congress, and by discarding all intermediate agencies, to re¬ 
gard the planter and the home manufacturer as competitors for the do¬ 
mestic market. This is the fact, under whatever modifications the ex¬ 
change may exist, and thus stripped of ail convolutions and circuities, the 
inference becomes easy. The planter bringing the returns of his industry 
to a glutted market, (tor it must be kept in mind that the manufacturer, 
by his own showing, is not only able to supply the home market, but to 
export,) the tax levied on his imports, must tail on himself and none other ; 
the home manufacturer either consuming his own goods, or, if he prefer to 
consume the imports of the planter, selling his own productions to the 
planter at an increase of price equivalent to the tax with which the im¬ 
ports of the planter are compelled to sustain the competition. It must 
appear obvious then, that the contest about the character in which the 
planter is burthened, is a quarrel about names, and that in this war of 
words the substance of the controversy is permitted to escape. 

The removal of a few obnoxious items from the tax at the last session of 
Congress, which is relied on as furnishing grounds to presume a general 
repeal, I regard as raising a presumption exactly the reverse. The con¬ 
spirators are thus relieved from all cause ol quarrel, and the necessity for 
a continuance of the spirit of adjustment and compromise under which 
the system grew upisthus effectually dispensed with; while those who have 
hitherto regarded each other in hardly a spirit of toleration, are thus con 


[ 120 j 

nected in the indissoluble ties of interest and regard. The removal of 
these items, regarded as a relief from our burthens, is worse than mocke¬ 
ry—compared with the great mass from which they were subtracted, they 
are but as feathers taken from a Camel’s load, which is crushing him to 
death. 

The successive bankruptcies which ensued upon the passage of the 
several tariff’acts, and which have been looked to as a probable ground 
for an abandonment of the system, 1 regard as having a directly contrary 
tendency. It will be recollected that these acts served as lures, by which 
many were enticed into this system without capital, who were successive¬ 
ly made victims to the evasions of the several acts. These are the suffer¬ 
ers by the system, and it was the hazardous enterprize of these adventu¬ 
rers which for a long time put in jeopardy the interest of the regular 
manufacturer upon permanent capital. But the extinction of the summer 
Hies who were hatched in the heat and moisture of government protection, 
so far from injuring the steady market of the surviving manufacturer, whose 
business was based upon permanent capital, only serves to ensure him a bet¬ 
ter and safer market for his products, especially when it is remembered, that 
Mr. Mallary’s bill passed at the last session of Congress, is to a great ex¬ 
tent a security against evasions of the existing high duty system. 

The expected interposition of Gen. Jackson is, I regret to say, a delu¬ 
sion, and I am almost tempted to say, a wilful delusion, to which some 
gentlemen are either really victims themselves, or seek to dupe a devoted 
populace through their attachment to an individual. A few plain facts 
must put clown in a breath, all the unfounded hopes which have connected 
themselves with this expected source of relief. Unless we expect the 
President to immolate himself for our benelit, we need not hope for his in¬ 
terference in our behalf. His votes at his late election stood, 42 from the 
tariff’ party and 59 from the anti-tariff' party, and hence the conciliation 
which he has been obliged to observe towards either interest in all his pub¬ 
lic acts. Ilis late message, however, if any doubts could remain of the 
tenor of his opinions, must put the question to rest; for he distinctly re¬ 
iterates the expression of Mr. Mallary, that the principle will not and can¬ 
not be abandoned. Suppose him, however, to be well affected to us, has 
be power under the constitution to repeal an act of Congress ? If not, 
where is the hope ol relief from him ? My respect for the gentlemen who 
have pinned their faith upon this forlorn hope, can hardly restrain me 
from characterizing it as the merest weakness and delusion. But, sir, on 
the supposition that the President could compel the repeal of the act, that 
would not satisfy me. A repeal ot the act would only break up the 
present combination, but would not prevent a recurrence of the evil in a 
more formidable shape, and enforced by a more imposing array 7 of num¬ 
bers—it would “ scotch the snake, not kill it.” I should regard no move in 
regard to the high duty system as satisfactory, that did not reach the root 
ol the calamity, and not only repress the existing fraud, but serve as a 
permanent indemnify against its recurrence. Our interests are never safe 
while the principle is recognized, that Congress can lay imposts for pro¬ 
tection. 

Believing then that awaiting the relief which is looked for from a re¬ 
turning sense of justice, is vain—that the dictates of justice are lost, when 
P- appeals are silenced bv the clamours of insatiate avarice, and the fc- 


[ 121 ] 


lentless calls of extortion—that any hopes founded in an abandonment oi 
the scheme, as unproductive, are equally illusory; as at best, it is a choice 
with the manufacturer between the protection which he now receives and 
bankruptcy—and that ail hopes founded in executive interference are bar¬ 
red by the dependence of the President on the tariff party, and the impotence 
of his constitutional functions; it cannot remain a doubt with the committee, 
that the state should interpose in her highest sovereign capacity for arresting 
the evil. With this view it has been proposed that a convention of the peo¬ 
ple should be ccdled. In giving in my adhesion to this proposition, it might 
be sufficient to say, that 1 canvassed and was chosen, with an understand¬ 
ing that I was in favor of it. I do not adopt it from a belief that under 
the present disposition of political powers it would represent the 
state “ in its highest sovereign capacity;’’ but under a belief that before 
the sovereign powers of the state are called into requisition, a coincidence 
should be effected between the regular depositaries of political power: 
and that it is the only efficient source through which that power, in con¬ 
tingencies which are incident to the crisis, might become developed and 
concentrated for the purpose of relief. The idea that a convention,if called, 
could change the constitution, is founded in an ignorance of the subjeet. 
The 2d clause of the 11th art. ot the constitution of South Carolina, con¬ 
tains a negative of any such power, by confining the power oi “ altering 
the constitution to two-thirds oi two successive Legislatures only, and 
that too by a negative clause, directly succeeding the clause which con¬ 
templates the call ot a convention—evincing clearly, that a convention 
was never intended to be called with a view to alter the constitution, but 
only in certain cases to ascertain the sense of the people in regard to any 
s-reat public emergency, and to harmonize the action of unorganized mass¬ 
es in cases in which the public safety may require concert. If it should be 
at any time the sense ol the people of this state, that the constitution 
should be abolished, no man on this floor would be so arrogant as to deny 
to them that rmht—but for such a case no provision is made in our con¬ 
stitution, as none should be made* With a view then to concert among^ 
ourselves, if for no other reason, the conference aud free interchange oj 
opinion which a convention would induce , is indispensiole. 

~ The idea that a convention would destroy our relations with the con¬ 
federacy, is idle—No man could take a seat there, unless representing the 
sentiments of the people who chose him : and knowing the people not to 
be disaffected to the confederacy, but only to its mal-administration, I feel 

confident that no such proceeding would be attempted; and if tried, that 

it would be fatal to its projectors. Let me trust then, that all such objec¬ 
tions as seem to attach themselves to this advisory measure , being obviated , 
the Legislature will no longer defer committing our present embarrassing 
relations to an intelligent and virtuous people, that our efforts for relief 
way harmonize to a point of common suffering or common security. 


Note—U pon a more careful examination of the author, from whom the 
allusion, at the commencement of this speech is drawn, (Gac. An. L. 3,) 
the speaker finds that his want of memory and his unliterary habits have 
betrayed him into a slight historical inaccuracy, i he four first sentences 
will therefore be considered as expunged, and the following offered as a 
substitute-—the speech as it is printed separately: be:ng so amendeu 

16 


\ 



1122 ] 

“It is said that in a funeral procession of an illustrious lady, the images of 
“two of the most distinguished among the Romans were omitted to be 
“displayed. ‘For that reason they were present to every imagination, 
“and with a superior lustre eclipsed the splendor of the day.’ The re- 
“mark which is made of the pageant of Junia, would apply with hardly 
“less force to this funeral procession of our rights. To be found in this 
“ discussion, when one is condemned either to be trite or superficial, is 
“ certainly to be regarded as any thing but a distinction. 


HENRY E PINCKNEY’S SPEECH. 

• 

Mr. Chairman: I solicit the indulgence of the committee for a few 
moments. I would not have obtruded on their patience, (particularly 
after the able and ample discussion which has already been given to this 
subject by my colleague from Charleston, Mr. D. E. Huger, and Those 
who have succeeded him,) but that I deem it a duty to my constituents, 
not to give a silent vote upon this occasion. The question which we are 
now called upon to determine, is, perhaps, the most solemn and important 
which has ever engaged the deliberation of this Legislature. And yet it 
lias been so long before the people—it has been the source of such deep 
and general excitement—and it has been so intimately connected with, 
and had such powerful influence upon, our late general elections—that 
in all probability, the opinions of members are irrevocably fixed, and 
every gentleman has already determined the complexion of his vote. It 
is not therefore, with the remotest expectation of affecting the votes of 
others,—I have no such folly or presumption—that l now trouble the 
committee, but simply and exclusively to assign the reasons for my own. 
In assigning those reasons, as I shall impute nothing sinister to the mo¬ 
tives of others, so, I trust, nothing improper will be ascribed to mine. I 
believe that all upon this floor are actuated by equal purity of motive, and 
disinterestedness and patriotism of principle and purpose." I believe’ that 
they all equally consult their country’s good, and equally desire the honor 
and welfare of our beloved state. The only point of difference is, as to 
the mode by which those great objects may be most surely, safely, and 
efficiently attained. In the views which I entertain and' the course I 
shall pursue, I may possibly be wrong—but they are the results, notwith¬ 
standing of a conscientious conviction of the injuries which have been in¬ 
flicted upon our people, and of an honest desire, as far as I can, to aid in 
removing and redressing them—and, if I err, I have the consolation, at 
all events, to know, that I err with many of our purest patriots and most 
uistinguisned statesmen—with Calhoun and Harper—with Martin and 
M‘Duffie—with Miller and Hamilton and Sumter—and “though last, not 
least with my very able and eloquent friend from Richland, (W. C. 
1 reston,) whom I would compliment if delicacy would permit me and to 
whom South Carolina owes a large debt of gratitude for his zealous and 
uniting exertions in sustaining and promoting the great cause of southern 
rights and interests. 

?ir > the T’estion now before the committee is not, as to the constitution- 




[ 1*5 ] 

ality or unconstitutionality of the tariff*, nor as to the injustice and op¬ 
pressiveness of the American system, comprehensively considered in alt 
its branches and relations. Upon these points, I apprehend, there is now 
at least, little or no diversity of sentiment. The Legislature otthis state, 
and indeed the Legislatures of all the southern states, have repeatedly 
expressed their solemn conviction of its unconstitutionality and tyranny. 
The people of the south have almost unanimously responded to these 
legislative declarations. In this state, particularly, popular opinion has 
been frequently and openly expressed, and in every form in which it is 
possible to express it. It is no longer a question with our people, sir, 
whether Congress has a constitutional right to foster one branch of indus¬ 
try at the expense of others; nor whether, under the false and fraudul ent 
title of a bill to raise revenue, it has a right to pass a tariff of protection, 
for the purpose of building up the manufactures of the north upon the 
commercial and agricultural ruins of the south. It is no longer a question 
with our people sir, whether Congress has a right, under the flimsy and 
insidious pretext of promoting the “general welfare” to drain them of the 
hard earnings of their industry, for the purpose of carrying on internal 
improvements in other sections of the union, nor is it a question with 
them, sir, whether Congress has a constitutional right to apply the trea¬ 
sure, thus extorted from them, to the baleful purposes of the Colonization 
Society—a society of which it is the inevitable tendency, and indeed the 
open and avowed object, to destroy the value of our property, and tlien 
totally to abolish the peculiar institutions of the south, "lhese are no 
longer questions with our people. They have been abundantly satisfied, 
by argument and reason, of the injustice and tyranny of these proceedings, 
and they have been still more feelingly convinced by that best of all 
possible teachers, practical experience. They have seen every prediction 
fulfilled—every statement confirmed—every anticipation realized. They 
have seen their foreign commerce wither and decay the price of then 
°reat staples reduced—their incomes lessened—tneir embanasstnents in¬ 
creased. They have seen their property depreciate, and, with its mon¬ 
strous fall in value, even its existence put in jeopardy. ^ In short they 
have seen South Carolina, with all her immense natural advantages, regu¬ 
larly becoming weaker and poorer, whilst other sections of the union, 
with no natural advantages to be compared to hers, have been rapidly 
advancing in wealth and population, and they perfectly comprehend the 
process by which these relative changes have been wrought. I ney 
understand fully the arbitrary system of legislative transfusion by which 
their wealth has been transferred to the veins of others. Fliey know ants, 
they feel , that it is through their poverty—basely brought ab^ut by those 
« who feel power and forget right”—that other sections of the union 
have been made rich. The only question with our people, theiefore, and 
consequently the true question for this committee, is—not the right, but 
the remedy—not the power of the majority to enslave and oppress us, 

but the mode and measure of redress. . , ,. 

Sir, if this system of taxation, grievous as if is, nad been adopted toi 
any national or patripfic objects. South Carolina would not only paiticu- 
larly, but cheerfully, have submitted. If it had been imposed, for in¬ 
stance, to redeem the public credit, to sustain the national honoi,to icpel 
a foreign foe, or for any other laudable or common purpose, the people of 


this state would assuredly have exhibited the same magnanimous devo 
tion the union, which lias ever characterised them in times of na¬ 
tional difficulty or distress. Indeed it is but common justice to my fellow 
citizens to say, that if at this moment the federal administration was in¬ 
volved in difficulties with a foreign power, they would instantly suspend 
their controversy with the federal government, and support the adminis¬ 
tration with all their hearts and to the utmost of their strength. But our 
people know too well—and hence arises the peculiar bitterness of their 
sufferings—that national interest or honor lias no connection with this 
system. They know that it originated in avarice, and lias been rivetted 
by fraud. They know that it was imposed, not for general, but for sec¬ 
tional purposes—not with a legitimate view to revenue, but to swell the 
fortunes of speculators and monopolists—not to sustain the public faith, 
but to provide the means of popular corruption, by squandering pro¬ 
fusely the public treasure—not to secure or promote the welfare or inde¬ 
pendence of the whole union, but to render one portion of it basely tribu¬ 
tary to the others. Our people know, moreover, that degrading and 
exhausting as this condition is, there is no rational prospect of a favorable 
change. They know that the advocates of protection have again and again 
declared that it is, and shall be, the settled and unalterable policy offthe 
country. They know that Mr. Clay, the great champion and reputed 
father of this policy, has openly proclaimed that he would rather lose 
Bouth Carolina from the union, than relinquish or abate it. They know, 
in short, that the tariff states are as deeply interested to maintain it, as the 
southern states to destroy it—and therefore that it is utterly vain to ex¬ 
pect relief from those whose own interests and fortunes are absolutely 
identified with the existence of the system. Is it strange then under these 
circumstances, that our people should at length think that the argument 
is exhausted ? Is it strange that they should have totally abandoned all 
idea of further remonstrance or petition ? Or is it not perfectly natural 
and proper that they should call upon the Legislature, as they have done, 
to interpose,in some way, for their protection and redress? 

But, Mr. Chairman, this is not all. Deeply as our people have suffered, 
in a pecuniary point of view, under the base injustice of this system, they 
have been still more outraged at the reasoning and doctrines by which 
it is attempted to be maintained. They are not only robbed and plunder¬ 
ed, but they have had the mortification to see the robbery gravel v justified 
as a constitutional right. Did they complain of the destruction J of their 
foreign trade? They were told that Congress has an indisputable rio-ht 
“ to regulate commerce.” Did they complain that they were unjustly 
taxed to construct roads and canals in the north and west? They were 
answered that Congress has aright “to promote the general welfare ,” 
and, for this purpose, to expend the public money as it pleases. Did 
they deny the right of Congress, as a substantive po wer, to protect manu¬ 
factures ? They were told that it is necessarily incidental to the power 
to raise revenue, and that it is difficult to conceive the existence of the 
one without the other. Did they insist that such a power was not only 
not given, but had even been positively refused and rejected by the fra¬ 
mers of the Constitution, in convention ? They were answered that al¬ 
though the power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the 
states, it had been completely surrendered to the general government— 


[ I*. ] 


that with this power, the right to adjust the duties, with a view to tiie en ¬ 
couragement of domestic industry, had also been relinquished—that it is a 
power which has always been exercised by other nations —and that to 
take it from our government would be to destroy its equality with other 
governments, and to render it at once an anomally and a cypher. Did 
they allege that the tariff’, whilst it enhances the price of all they are 
obliged to purchase, reduces the price of all they have to sell, and that 
they are therefore injured by being forced to buy dearer and sell cheaper 
than they could do, if left to themselves? 1'hcy were answered that. 
Congress has a right “to regulate the capital and industry of the nation. 5 ’ 
Did they represent their European market would be lost, and that their 
produce, consequently, would rot upon their hands? They were told in 
reply, that a domestic market would be raised up, and that the northern 
manufacturers would take a portion of their cotton, and that too at the 
price to which their kindness had reduced it ? Did they complain that 
whilst they were incessantly drained, they received nothing in return, and 
that whilst the “ system” enriched those who were already prosperous, it 
took away from those who were poor and embarrassed ? They were com¬ 
forted with the answer that the money was expended for the general good, 
and that their patriotism would find abundant compensation for their 
sufferings in the rapid progress and improvement of other sections ot the 
union. Did they complain, in short, that the tariff*weighs, like an incubus 
on all the great interests of the south ? They were assured, in reply, that 
it actually benefits them without their being able to perceive it—that the 
inevitable effect of the tariff* would be to cheapen prices—that one of the 
greatest reasons with the manufacturers themselves, for desiring it, was, 
because it would force them to sell cheaper than they did before—and 
that if our people would only allow time for its full operation and dev'e- 
lopement, they would themselves acknowledge it as a blessing to the 
south. Such were some of the complaints of our people—and such the 
answers usually given by the supporters of the system. Such arguments, 
of course, could only be regarded by every southern heart, as adding ridi¬ 
cule and insult to injustice and oppression. But, if our people were out¬ 
raged by the reasoning of their oppressors in relation to the system , what 
must have been their astonishment and their dismay to find, when, in 
consequence of such repeated contumely, they at length spoke of stand- 
in o- on their rights, that all their rights were absolutely denied, and 
themselves regarded literally as colonists and vassals. Did they speak of 
exerting the sovereign power of the state ? They were told, both in and 
out of Congress—in defiance of truth, and in the face of history—that 
there is no sovereign but the federal government—that the states, 
when they entered into the confederacy., delegated all their sovereign 
powers to the federal head—that the federal constitution is not a compact 
between the states, as states, but was formed by the people of the whole 
union collectively—and that the federal government is the sole and ex¬ 
clusive judge of the extent of its own powers, and of the constitutionality 
©fits own proceedings. Did they remind their oppressors of the reserved 
rio-hts of the states, and of the necessity there might be for asserting and 
enforcing them? They were told there were none, or, if any, too feeble 
and insignificant to mention—that every power, worth having, had been 
given to the general government—that the 


great object of the union was 

o 



£ 126 j 

the consolidation oi that government—and that it possesses, accordingly, 
all power external and domestic, general and municipal. Did they speak 
of annulling or suspending the tariff acts by the Legislature or conven¬ 
tion? They were told that a state has no such power—that the Supreme 
Court is the only competent tribunal to decide upon differences between 
the states and the general government—that resistance, by a state, to an 
act of Congress, would be treasonable—that all who should enforce it, 
would be liable to punishment as traitors—and I hat a state has not even 
a constitutional right to express an opinion as to the constitutionality or 
unconstitutionality of an act of Congress. Such are the doctrines of our 
oppressors—of Clay and Webster—of the old federal party under the el¬ 
der Adams—and of the national republican party of the present dav.— 
They not only justify the miscalled American system upon principle , but 
they actually deny the sovereignty of the states, consider them as mere 
corporations possessing little more than mere municipal power, and claim 
and assert for the federal government, not only the right to regulate the 
external or foreign affairs of the confederacy, but also to bind the slates, 
and to direct and control the private concerns of the people , in any man¬ 
ner and to any extent which their own discretion mav suggest. Is it any 
wonder then, that our people are excited by the conduct of a party, who, 
whilst they practice the grossest injustice and oppression, justify their prac¬ 
tices by claiming all power i or the federal government? Is it any won¬ 
der that our people, suffering as they have done, under the most galling 
pecuniary impositions, and seeing those impositions sustained by such 
doctrines, should be both indignant anil alarmed? Is it wonderful, under 
such circumstances, that they should have convened in their primary 
assemblies, examined the dangers that surround them, and proclaimed 
their unqualified denunciation of the conduct and principles of the sup¬ 
porters of the system ? Or is it wonderful, that having lost all hope, 
they should at last have considered the necessity of counteraction, have 
caused the elections to the Legislature to turn principally on the subject 
of our federal relations, and have endeavored to induce that body to place 
the state in an attitude accommodated to the crisis? No, sir! the only 
wonder is, that with evils of such magnitude so long surrounding them, 
they should have borne them as long and patiently as they have done. 
Nothing could have induced them to do so but a strong fraternal affection 
for their oppressors, and an unspeakable reluctance to affect the integrity 
or harmony of the republic. But our people are now satisfied that their 
forbearance is regarded as an acknowledgment of weakness—that their 
affection for their brethren is misconstrued into indifference or apathy in 
relation to their wrongs—and that the longer they submit, the greater and 
more degrading will be the impositions and indignities they will have to 
bear. They, therefore, call upon the Legislature to protect them. They 
call upon us to interpose the sovereign power of the state between them 
and their oppressors. And what then, Mr. Chairman, is our duty as the 
representatives of the people not as the representatives of our own imme¬ 
diate parishes or districts—hut of the whole people of the state ? Is it 
not to listen to their voice, and to comply with their requisitions? Sir, 

I sincerely believe that upwards of two tliirds of the people expect and 
require decisive proceedings of some sort by the Legislature. Will not 
two thirds of the Legislature respond to the call ? Sir, I hope and trust it 




will—and the resolutions which have been reported by the committee on 
federal relations, and particularly the one respecting a convention, have 
been introduced for the purpose of answering and gratifying, as far as we 
can, the just and reasonable expectations of the people. 

What then, are the objections to the call of a convention ? All the ob¬ 
jections which have been urged, either here or elsewhere, may be resolved 
into three—for in these three all the others are embraced. 

The first objection is, that this is not the proper time to call a con¬ 
vention. 

The second is, that a convention would be useless, except it be call¬ 
ed to nullify—and that a nullification would lead to disunion and to civil 
war. 

The third is, that a convention is illimitable—and that being so, it might 
and moA probably would, in addition to the consideration of federal mat¬ 
ters, effect alterations in the state constitution, injurious to the interests 
of the lower country. I ask the indulgence of the committee whilst I make 
a few remarks upon each of these objections. 

The first objection is, that this is not the proper time to call a conven¬ 
tion of the people. And here we are met both by friends and foes—both 
by some of those who concur with us in principle, as well as by those who 
support the doctrines of our adversaries. The first are good state rights 
men in the abstract, but they will not consent to the call of a convention. 
They agree that the tariff'is unconstitutional and ruinous to our interests, 
but they will do nothing to arrest the progress of the evil. They admit 
the wrongs and sufferings of our people, but yet they will do nothing to 
redress them. They acknowledge that our cup of bitterness is not only 
full, but will probably be made fuller, even to overflowing, and yet they 
know no better remedy than continued acquiesence. They admit that 
the time may come, and probably will come, when South Carolina will 
have no alternative but to protect her rights and liberties by force, and yet 
they will adopt no intermediate measure now, which may avert a catastro¬ 
phe so much to be deplored. In short they oppose the remedy we offer, 
and yet will propose no other in its stead. They think the time for a 
convention has not yet come ; and they advise us therefore to deter that 
measure for some time longer, and to wait the progress of events. Such is 
the conduct of some of our friends. Nothing unkind to them is meant by 
these remarks. We know and rejoice that they agree with us in all the 
essential principles of state rights, and we trust that they will yet co-ope¬ 
rate with us in carrying them into practice. 

Very different from these are the grounds on which convention is re¬ 
sisted by our political opponents. They not only do not admit the uncon- 
stitutionality of the tariff', but they deny that it is a violation either of the 
letteror spirit of the constitution. They not only do not acknowledge it 
to be oppressive, but they even contend that it is actually beneficial. Some 
of them tell us that high duties have always lessened the prices of the ar¬ 
ticles, that goods are cheaper, and that our planters also get better prices 
for their produce than before; and they insinuate, ol course, that these re¬ 
sults have been produced by the successive augmentations of the tariff’. 
Nothing can be more fallacious than these positions. That goods lor seve¬ 
ral years back, have been cheaper than they formerly were, I will not 
denv—but it arose, not from our tariffs, but in defiance of their rigour. The 


1 128 J 


natural tendency of high duties is to create high prices; and it prices were 
low notwithstanding our tariffs, it could on 1 v be because they were coun¬ 
teracted by other and very powerful causes. During the late wars, in 
which almost every civilized nation was involved, an immense amount ot 


capital and labor were abstracted from mechanical employments. The 
price of labor naturally rose, and with it the prices of manufactures; and 
during the whole of that period, they were probably at their highest. But 
with the return of peace came a redundant supply of capital and labor, 
extensive and wonderful improvements in machinery, and with them, ot 
course, a natural and necessary depreciation of manufactured articles. It 
is absurd, therefore, to impute this depreciation to our tariffs. Cheap as 
goods may have been, had no high duties been imposed, they would have 
been considerable cheaper still. Remove them now, and prices, low as 
they may be, would fall yet lower. It is well known, too, as regards the 
last tariff (that of ’28,) that prices were kept down, notwithstanding its 
severity, by the very heavy importations which were made in anticipation 
of its passage, and by the prodigious quantity of smuggling to which it gave 
rise, and by which it was evaded. It will not do, therefore, to say that 
the cheapness of goods has been owing to our tariff laws. The fact on the 
contrary is, that our restrictive policy, instead of being the real cause ot 
the fall in prices, lias actually kept them higher than they otherwise would 
have been ; and we have thus been prevented from enjoying, as other na¬ 
tions have done, all the advantages which we should have otherwise deriv¬ 
ed from the general depreciation of manufactured articles. As to the 
assertion, Mr. Chairman, that our planters get better prices for their sta¬ 
ples than they did before, the fact is not so. The assertion is disproved, 
not only by the actual experience and deteriorated fortunes of the planters 
themselves, but by the official records of the country. But, even admit¬ 
ting that they do, the true question still would be, not what do they get 
for their produce, but how are they allowed to dispose of their incomes, 
not, for how much they can sell their crops, but how much of their pro¬ 
ceeds they arc compelled to pay in unjust and unnecessary taxes? Let 
any planter estimate his annual expenditure, in articles of consumption, 
under the present tariff, and compare it with what it would be under a re¬ 
duced system of duties, such as that of 1816, and he will ascertain at once 
the enormous proportion of his income which is wantonly taken from him 
by the government; and why is it taken ? Let those who talk of the high 
prices of our products answer?—let them explain, if they can, why our 
citizens should be compelled to pay for northern manufacturers double 
the price for which, but for the tariff, they could obtain similar articles, 
and of a far superior quality, from Europe ! Let them do this—let them 
explain, if they can, tli e right of the north to enslave the south—and when 
they have done this, wc will allow them the full benefit of their assertion 
respecting the prices of our products. 

But, Mr. Chairman, it is said, that even admitting the tariff to be inju¬ 
rious, the reduction, at the last session ot Congress, of the duties on tea 
and coffee and salt and molasses, is a sure augury of its final dissolution, 
and that in a few years more it will crumble into atoms. Those who urge 
this argument also advise us to postpone a convention because the presi¬ 
dent has placed his veto upon the Maysville, Rockville, and other internal 
improvement bills. This they regard as perfectly tantamount to the de- 


[ 129 ] - 

struction of the system—and they think, therefore, that as soon as the 
public debt is paid (which, they say, will be in a very few years) the tariff 
will be reduced to the standard of 1816. Sir, I cannot concur in either 
ot these opinions. The duties on tea and coffee were reduced, not only 
because those articles did not enter into competition with any thing 
American, and the duties on them, therefore, might be safely reduced 
without imparing or deranging the system, but because the reduction 
really benelitted the tariff states themselves, whilst it also threw out a 
bait, a delusive prospect of relief, to the injured people of the south. The 
reduction of the duties on salt and molasses was a mere piece of political 
jugglery, by which, however artfully designed, no one has been deceived. 
The tax on molasses was unpalateable to the east, and it was therefore 
given up. The salt interest was the weakest in the catalogue, and it 
was ascertained, by calculation, that it might be sacrificed without mate¬ 
rially affecting the strength of the combination. It was important, also, 
to conciliate North Carolina which had become somewhat clamorous and 
discontented on the subject. The duty on salt was therefore altered ; and 
the tariff*states now have the system exactly in the shape in which it is 
most favorable to themselves, and in which it bears with exclusive and 
unmitigated rigour on the south. And they will keep it so. Sir, in re¬ 
lation to internal improvements, no man can honor Gen. Jackson more 
sincerely than I do for the manly independence of his veto on the bills re¬ 
ferred to. No man can honor him more sincerely than I do for the noble 
effort he has made to turn back the tide ot corruption, to arrest the pro¬ 
gress of usurpation, and to preserve the rights and sovereignty of the 
states. But, Mr. Chairman, the president cannot save us. With all 
the best dispositions in the world, he can neither save nor help us. It is 
vain to indulge the hope. lie may, indeed, arrest the system of internal 
improvements for a time, but it will either revive with redoubled strength, 
or else the monies, which would otherwise be applied to it, will be appro¬ 
priated in some other way equally ruinous and destructive to the south- 
Suppose the public debt should be paid in a few years—it is certainly 
doubtful—but suppose it should ! What men? Will the tariff be reduced 
—will the majority give up their power—will the tariff states allow their 
favorite system to be destroyed—will they allow the work of years to be 
swept away in a moment—will they consent that all their factories, in 
which millions upon millions have been invested, shall be utterly ruined 
by the influx of foreign commerce which would overwhelm them in a 
moment—will they incur certain ruin and bankruptcy to gratify the south ? 
Never sir! never, at least, as long as avarice loves money, or ambition 
power! never as long as manufacturers, or the agents of manufacturers, 
shall occupy seats upon the floor of Congress! never as long as northern 
imposition shall be only resisted by southern resolutions and remonstran¬ 
ces ? No sir! to induce avarice to relax its grasp—to induce monopoly 
to forego its gains—to induce ambition to relinquish power, some argu¬ 
ment must be used more imposing and effective than silent acquiescence ? 
No sir! the supporters of the American system never will abandon it— 
never at least until they shall be convinced, by calculations, that they 
hazard less in repealing or modifying, than by continuing to enforce it. 
If then the tariff will not be repealed—and 1 am sure it will not, tor pub¬ 
lic opinmn is as decidedly in its favor every where else as it is against it 

" 17 * 


t l^O J 

in the south—what will be done with the surplus monies in the treasury ? 
Why they will either be applied to internal improvements upon a more 
dangerous and extended scale—to national works, as they are called, such 
as the Buffalo and New Orleans road—or thev will be distributed amongst 
the states, conformably to the recommendation of the executive, in pro¬ 
portion to their representation in Congress. And either of these systems 
will be ruinous to us. Should internal improvements be revived, South 
Carolina will continue to be drained of four millions of dollars annually, 
without receiving literally one dollar in return. Should the distributive 
project be adopted, she would only receive, at the best, some two or three 
nundred thousand dollars. This project, I conceive, is radically objec¬ 
tionable in every point of view. It is unnecessray, unequal and degra¬ 
ding to the states. It involves the anomaly, to use no stronger term, ol 
taxing the people first in order to divide the monjey amongst them after¬ 
wards. Money, not wanted by the government, is decidedly better in the 
pockets of the people. It is unequal, because many states, largely repre¬ 
sented in Congress, contribute but little to the treasury, whilst others, 
with smaller delegations, contribute largely. Those which pay the least, 
therefore, would derive more than those which pay the most. No wonder 
the scheme is popular with the non-paying portion. It is degrading to 
the states. It would convert them into mere pensionaries of the federal 
government. It would destroy their sovereignty, and make them liter- 
ally, nothing more than corporations. Instead of taxing their own people, 
raising their own supplies and exercising themselves the essential attri¬ 
butes of power, they would hang, like suppliants, at the door of the fede¬ 
ral treasury, depending upon it for their annual allowance to carry oil 
their operations. It is bad enougli that individuals or companies should 
beg, or receive donations from the government. This is enough for popu¬ 
lar corruption. It would be too bad that states should exhibit this de¬ 
pendant attitude. That w r ould be, indeed, the climax and perfection of 
consolidation and corruption. No such scheme then, I trust, will ever 
be admitted by the south. It is idle, and worse than 7 dle—it would be 
perfect madness and fatuity to think of falling in with a system, by which 
(whilst it would destroy her sovereignty and degrade her character) this 
state alone would be made to pay more than all the New England states 
together, and fiom which she would receive in return scarcely more upon 
an average than the smallest of those states. And yet such are the alter¬ 
natives to which yve are reduced. What then shall we do? Shall we 
wait until the public debt is paid, in order to see which ol these systems is 
to be fixed upon us ? Suffering as we have done for six years past, shall 

• j• i .1 * j* years more, in the vain hope that at the ex¬ 

piration ot that time our evils will have redressed themselves? And 
then, when we find that so far from being redressed, they have actually 
become worse and worse, shall we begin again another six years war of 
lamentation, and petition and remonstrance? Sir, I trust not! and yet 
this must be the inevitable consequence of following the advice of those 
who tell us to wait the progress of events, and the enlightenment of pub¬ 
lic opinion. Wait tiie progress ol events! Sir, have’nt we waited the 
progress of events for years already, and has not everv year added to our 
calamities and burdens? Wait the enlightenment of public opinion !— 
Have nt we waded this too for years, and havc*nt we found ‘ 


it 


grow ms; 


[131] ' ;• 

regularly stronger and stronger in lavor of the system} lJo vve not see 
that General Jackson's vetoes on the Maysville and Rockville bills have 
lost him the support of Maryland and Ohio, and probably of Kentucky? 
Can we hope to succeed where the hero of New Orleans has failed ? Can 
we hope to change the feelings or opinions of those whose pockets 
their politics, anu who, even if they were accessible to southern argun 


are 
gument 

or southern suffering, seldom or never see a southern print, or hear a 
southern voice ? No sir! if this be our only hope, we had better abandon 
the contest at once. If this be our only hope, we had better send in our 
adhesion to the majority, and come in for a portion of the plunder which 
they have extorted from us. Rut, sir, I hope for better things. Money is 
not all that is involved in this question. If involves principle also—it in¬ 
volves the great question ot liberty or slavery—and the decision of the 
Legislature upon this question will either go very tar to protect the rights 
and properties of our citizens, to support and establish the sovereignty of 
the state, and to restore the federal constitution to its original simplicity 
and purity—or it will create an impression in other states either that we 
do not suffer or dare not resist, and thus lead to an extension of our bur¬ 
dens, and to additional outrages and impositions on our people. Ido 
think, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that this is the proper time to call a 
convention. I think that if, after all that has been said and done—after 
all our legislative protests and memorials—after all our popular excite¬ 
ment and agitation—a convention be not now called, it never will be. Our 
people will give up the contest in despair. Those that can will quit this 
sinking stale for more protected regions—those who cannot, will fold 
their arms in apathy—and thus the last hope of constitutional liberty 
will be suffered to expire! 

The second objection, Mr. Chairman, is, that a convention would be 
useless except it be to nullify—and that nullification would lead to dis¬ 
union and to civil war. I cannot concur in either of these opinions. I 
cannot agree that a convention would be useless except it nullifies the 
tariff. On the contrary I think that it may, and that it most probably will 
effect a vast deal of benefit even without proceeding to decisive measures. 
Representing the people, as it would, directly and in their highest sove¬ 
reign capacity, it would show, at all events, that the people are in earnest 
—that the opposition to the American system is not factious, or confined 
only to a few—that the resentment and indignation which have been ex¬ 
pressed are not confined to political leaders, but pervade the great 
mass of the community—and in short, that the people themselves have 
taken their rights and interests into their own keeping, and that they are 
determined to be heard. It may decide the tariff* acts to be unconstitu¬ 
tional and oppressive. This, indeed, is one great object for which it is 
generally desired, and there can be no doubt, should such a decision be 
obtained from this great elementary assembly of the people, that the state 
possesses full power, through the operation of its courts ot justice, to 
protect its citizens against the usurpations of the government. It 
may determine to remonstrate—and, should it do so, the remonstrance 
would certainly assume the most solemn and imposing form in which an 
application of that kind can possibly be presented to the federal authori¬ 
ties. It may draw up a manifesto, setting forth the construction given by 
South Carolina to the federal constitution, and explaining the principles 


[ 133 j 

and terms upon which slie entered into the confederacy, and upon winch 
alone she is willing to continue in it. It may accompany this manifesto by 
an exhibition of the practical operation of the tariff*, showing the nature and 
extent of the injuries it lias inflicted on the south, and illustrating strong¬ 
ly the monstrous injustice and inequality ot the system. It may send 
copies of these documents to Congress, by commissioners selected for 
their wisdom and experience, and especially instructed to enforce them; 
and it may also send copies to the other states, particularly of the south, 
for their consideration and concurrence. The convention may also pro¬ 
pose amendments to the federal constitution, in connection with these 
subjects, and calculated to provide for the future security of the southern 
states. Such a proceeding is of the last importance. In vain should w r e 
succeed in obviating present grievances, if we provide no guard against 
their future repetition. In vain should we throw off’our present burdens, 
if they may again be imposed at the arbitrary will ol the majority. It is 
highly desirable, therefore, than an effort should be made to procure such 
amendments as will secure us in the enjoyment of our rights. And from 
what source could such propositions proceed, with a better prospect ol 
success, than from a convention of the people P Can there be a doubt that 
all the other southern states agree with us in principle, and that they 
concur in the necessity both of obviating present evils, and of obtaining 
security for the future? Can there be a doubt that they are all anxiously 
looking at this moment to South Carolina, to see what she will do, and 
that they will cordially co-operate in any constitutional proceedings which 
she may adopt? No sir, there can be no doubt upon these points. The 
legislative memorials and resolutions of the other southern states prove 
conclusively that they are with us in principle, and we all know that they 
are identified in interest. Proceedings then, such as those I have men¬ 
tioned—and emanating from so august a source as a convention of the 
people—could not fail to produce much good. They would arrest and 
command the attention of Congress, which has never yet been yielded to 
our protests or entreaties. They would elicit public discussion every 
w'here, and all that our principles want is general discussion. They 
would excite the interest, and perhaps enlist the sympathy and support of 
the Jeft*ersonian democracy in other states. They might, and most proba¬ 
bly would, lead to similar conventions and similar proceedings in the 
other southern states. And who can say that we should not finally suc¬ 
ceed in procuring a general convention, and the adoption of such amend¬ 
ments as would give permanent security to the south, and permanent 
repose and tranquility to the union ? Sir, it is a great and most desirable 
object. It is an effort which ought to be made, even if it fail. But if it 
should succeed, how great would be the honor, to say nothing of the hap¬ 
piness, which would crown the patriotism and perseverence of our people. 
South Carolina would then take the honored and enviable station of Vir¬ 
ginia ; and she would justly be regarded as the saviour of the constitution 
and the union when they were literally at their last gasp. I cannot think, 
therefore, that a convention would be useless, except it nullify. On the 
contrary I am persuaded that, even without proceeding to extremity, it 
would result in valuable and lasting benefits. 

Nor can 1 concur with those, Mr. Chairman, who either deny the pow¬ 
er of convention to nullity, or who contend that nullification would pro- 


viuce disunion. Whether the convention should nullity or not, however, 

] would leave entirely to its own consideration and discretion. I would 
not trammel or restrict it on this subject. But at the same time I would 
not instruct the convention, one way or the other, in relation to this point. 

I cannot agree either with those who think that a convention cannot nul¬ 
lify, because it cannot legislate, or who apprehend that the exercise of 
this act of sovereignty would lead to anarchy and civil war. I cannot 
think with a distinguished fellow*citizen, (Mr. Cheves) that a convention 
can only act on the frame of the government itself—or in other words, 
that it can only be called to alter or amend the constitution. This does 
not seem to have been the idea or the doctrine of the framers of the con¬ 
stitution, or they certainly never would have given power to the Legisla¬ 
ture to alter and amend it. But they have given such power to the Legis¬ 
lature. And why, 1 would ask—why should they have given power to 
the Legislature to alter the constitution, and also to call a convention, if 
a convention, when called, can only be called lor that particular purpose? 
Why authorize the Legislature to call a convention to do, what the 
Legislature itself can do, and has repeatedly done? It really does seem 
to *me that if a convention can only be called to act on the constitution, 
the clause authorizing the Legislature to call it is supererogatory and use¬ 
less. The framers of the constitution, then, must have thought, and no 
doubt did think, that occasions might occur, independently of necessary 
alterations of that instrument and having no connection with it, on which 
resort should be had directly to the people ; and they therefore provided 
for the call of a convention in reference to such great and extraordinary 
occasions. And such an occasion, Mr. Chairman, has now occurred. 
Powers, not granted to the federal government, have been wantonly 
usurped*—dangerous infractions ol the federal compact have taken place * 
the reserved rights ol the states have been violated—and the state un- 
questionably has a right, in its sovereign capacity, to act upon these evils,, 
and to arrest their progress. If it has not sir, then it is manifest that it 
has no sovereignty at all, and that our people lie abjectly at tne merely ol 
their oppressors. But 1 believe, for one—call it legislation 01 what you 
please—that the state has a right, in convention, to act upon our differ-. 
e ncps with the federal government j and I not only believe that it has this 
right, but I believe moreover, that even if it should suspend or annul the 
unconstitutional acts complained ol, it would not only not lead to disuni¬ 
on, but whilst it would preserve our rights and protect oar properties, it 
would also re-establish and ensure the harmony and perpetuity of the 
union itself. And here permit me to observe, Mr. Chairman, that it has 
been but too common in the political discussions ol the day—and unfortu¬ 
nately for our state it has been done with too much popular effect—to 
brand the advocates of convention as disunionists and anarchists. Sir, 
permit me, once for all, for myself and for my friends, to disclaim and to 
repel the appellation. If I know my own heart, no man can abhor or dep¬ 
recate disunion more than I do. If I understand my own principles, they 
not only do not tend to disunion, but are eminently calculated to avert n. 
Sir, I was born an American citizen, and X claim the name, and I trust 1 
am as sensible, as any man upon this floor, ol its value and its dignity. 
Sir, I profess to be a republican, and I know that ours is the only republi¬ 
can constitution in the world. I love it, because it was bought by the, 


I 184 J 

blood, ami established by die wisdom of our ancestors. 1 love it, because 
it is identified with all that is pure in patriotism and sage in intellect— 
with all that is valuable in freedom and splendid in renown. I love it, 
because it has not only been the source of much happiness here, but be¬ 
cause it is the great fountain of liberty throughout the earth. If this 
great experiment should fail, there would, indeed, be no altar of liberty 
left at which a benighted world could relume its hopes—no asylum to 
which the oppressed could flee for refuge. I deprecate disunion, there¬ 
fore, because it would not only tear this fair fabric into atoms, but destroy 
the high raised hopes and fondest anticipations of philanthropy in every 
other portion of the globe. I deprecate it too, Mr. Chairman, because, 
whilst it would produce these great national calamities, it would extin¬ 
guish some of the finest feelings and proudest associations of my heart. 
I could no longer claim kindred with Hancock and Adams, and other 
worthies of the revolution. I could no longer call the United States my 
country, nor boast of its naval and military glories as the achievements of 
my countrymen. The records of the old Congress—the records of the 
federal convention—would no longer be a portion of our history. Even 
the federal constitution itself—the happiness of this country—the admi¬ 
ration of the world—and which I have a peculiar and filial reason to re¬ 
spect and cherish—would be scattered to the winds. And can it be sup¬ 
posed sir, that I would, if I could, impair this union? Can it be suppos¬ 
ed, that I would, if I could, destroy this constitution ? He who supposes 
so, neither appreciates the feelings of my heart, nor is capable of compre¬ 
hending the true nature of my principles. No sir! It is not of the union 
we complain ; ot it I say esto perpetua, provided it be administered upon 
the great principle of equal rights and equal burdens. It is not the consti¬ 
tution we oppose—but the gross and dangerous infractions of that instru¬ 
ment, by a selfish and interested majority in Congress. And can it be 
true, Mr, Chairman, that there is no remedy for these infractions short of 
a dissolution of the union ? Can it be really true, that the majority raav 
violate the constitution as they please, and impose any burdens and exac¬ 
tions they please upon the minority, and that there is no redress save 
what may be obtained from physical resistance? Is it really true that we 
live under a government « without limitation of powers”—and that the 
American government, professedly the freest, is the most tyrannical on 
earth and that we hold our rights, and liberties, and properties, at the 
mercy of an irresponsible majority, whose will is law, and to whose enact¬ 
ments, however unconstitutional or oppressive, we must of necessity sub¬ 
mit? It all this be true, then indeed had we better told our arms in dig¬ 
nified suamission, for then we have no alternative left but to incur the 
horrors of downright revolution. But most fortunately, Mr. Chairman, 
for the cause of liberty, it is not true. 1 here is a remedy for our grievan¬ 
ces short ot actual resistance. There is a happy constitutional medium 
between passive submission and a dissolution of the union: and that me¬ 
dium is to be found in the suspension of an unconstitutional law by the sove¬ 
reign authority of the state, until the majority shall call a general conven¬ 
tion to settle the question of disputed power! This doctrine, I know, has 
been decried and derided as new fangled, and alarming, and as invol¬ 
ving an act of state usurpation—but it is in reality neither new fangled, nor 
alarming, nor does it involve state usurpation. * It is, indeed, afmost a^ 




I 135 j 

oid as the constitution itself—it is bottomed upon the celebrated Virginia 
and Kentucky resolutions of ’98 and ’99—it is sanctioned by the authori¬ 
ty of Jefferson and Madison, than whom none better understood, or were 
more able to expound, the true theory of our government—and it has been 
recently sustained by the most able and philosophical statesmen of our 
country. Upon the great authority of these resolutions, and of the able 
expositions by which they have been illustrated and enforced, we claim 
the right of one fourth of the states to annul an unconstitutional act of 
Congress, and the right of an individual state to suspend its operation 
within its limits, until a federal convention shall have decided upon the 
respective rights and duties of the conflicting parties. Such is our doc¬ 
trine—its origin Jefferson—its authority Madison’s report. But Mr. 
Madison it seems—and the circumstance, naturally, has been eagerly 
caught at by the opposition—has recently undertaken to explain his re¬ 
port to the Legislature of Virginia. In that report the doctrine is express¬ 
ly and unequivocally laid down, that in cases of dangerous and palpable 
infraction of the federal constitution, by the exercise, by Congress, of pow¬ 
ers not granted, it is not only the right, but the duty of the states, to in¬ 
terpose tor the purpose of arresting the progress of the evil: and this, of 
course, has always been understood by all parties, both by those who op¬ 
posed and those who supported it, to convey the right of interposing the 
sovereign authority of the state, and in such a mode as may ensure efficient 
protection to its citizens. But Mr. Madison now explains his report to 
have asserted nothing more than the right to declare an act unconstitu¬ 
tional—nothing more in fact, than the mere right to express an opinion , 
or to interpose by argument —and he tells us, particularly, that it the Vir¬ 
ginia resolutions had been understood at the time to assert any other or 
higher power in the states, they would have been assuredly denounced, by 
the states which opposed them, as leading to disunion and anarchy. 
Now it is evident from history, that they were so understood, and that 
they were so denounced, by the states which opposed them. Those states 
were Massachusetts and New* Hampshire and Rhode Island and V ennont 
—and, in all their resolutions upon this subject, they expressly protested 
against the Virginia resolutions upon tiie grounds, that the Supreme 
Court of the United States is the only competent tribunal to decide upon 
controversies between the states and the federal government—that it is 
an unauthorized assumption of power in a state to pronounce an act ot 
Congress unconstitutional or void—and that such assumption could only 
be sustained by force, which would necessarily endanger the peace and 
safety of the union. These protests gave rise to the celebrated report ot 
Mr. Madison. And how does he answer the protesting states ? Does he 
assure them that they had mistaken the purport of the Virginia resolutions, 
and that they really contemplated nothing more than argument or remon¬ 
strance? No sir, on the contrary he justifles those resolutions in their es¬ 
sence and spirit. He positively denies the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
federal court—he rejects the degrading doctrine which would exalt that 
court above the states which created it—he maintains that tlie constitu¬ 
tion is a compact between the states as sovereigns and equals—that the 
states, having no common umpire, must necessarily decide lor themselves 
whether the compact has been violated—and that in cases ot dangerous vio¬ 
lation. it is both their right and their duty to interpose for the purpose of ar 


/ 





[ 136 | 


resting the progress ofusurpation, and of maintaining, within their respective 
limits, the rights, privileges, and immunities appertaining to them. He evi¬ 
dently attached no weight whatever to the objection of the protesting states 
founded on the fear of anarchy or disunion; for lie merely glances at it 
in his report, and all that he says upon that point is, that it is a consequence 
which ought neither to be anticipated or feared, from the exercise, by a 
state of her sovereign and unquestionable rights. Now, sir, what docs 
this language mean? Does it mean that a state has no other right than 
that of merely expressing an opinion? Is it possible that Mr. Madison 
composed his long and elaborate report, and that Mr. Jefferson drafted his 
celebrated Kentucky resolutions, and that the Legislatures of Kentucky 
and Virginia long debated and solemnly adopted political expositions, 
merely to assert the right of expressing an opinion? Is it possible that 
the Legislatures of Massachusetts and the other dissenting states protest¬ 
ed against the right of Virginia to express an opinion , when they were 
themselves actually exercising that right in adopting their protests ? All 
this is too absurd to be believed. And yet so Mr. Madison would have 
us now believe. The Virginia resolutions distinctly assert the right of a 
state to interpose, in cases of palpable and dangerous infraction, for the 
purpose of protecting its citizens, and of maintaining, withinits own limits, 
the immunities and privileges appertaining to it. And yet, according to 
Mr. Madison now, this can only be done by words. Potent and magical, 
indeed, they would be to effect such objects. Sir, I would not willingly 
say any thing that could possibly be tortured into disrespect to such a man 
as Mr. Madison, whose whole life has been devoted to the welfare of his 
country, to whom the nation is deeply indebted for his many and import¬ 
ant public services, and who has always been justly considered as one of 
the founders and fathers of the republican school. But the fact is not to 
be disguised that his report to the Virginia Legislature and his recent 
letter to the editor of the North American Review are utterly irreconcile- 
ablc with each other. I prefer his report decidedly to his letter—and, 
putting him against himself, I prefer his original construction of the consti¬ 
tution, given when the government was newly formed, and when he him¬ 
self was in the full radiance and vigor of his fame and faculties, to the 
doctrines he has recently promulged, and which are certainly at variance 
with his former principles and opinions. Sir, I consider the Kentucky and 
Virginia resolutions as the sheet anchor of the south—as the only true 
construction of the relative powers of the federal and state governments-— 
and as the only rock upon which we can depend tor safety against the 
torrent of consolidation which threatens to overwhelm us. And most 
fortunately, Mr. Chairman, the doctrines embraced in those resolutions 
do not depend merely upon abstract speculations,but have been repeated¬ 
ly and triumphantly reduced to practice. Virginia nullified the alien anil 
sedition laws, both by a resolution in which they were declared unconsti¬ 
tutional and void, and by a subsequent act, respecting the sedition law, 
by which the members of the Legislature were exempted from its opera 
lion. The state of Massachusetts, by an act of her Legislature, pronoun¬ 
ced the embargo unconstitutional and void so far as it related to the 
coasting trade, and an act to the same effect was passed- by the Legisla¬ 
ture of Connecticut. The recent case of Georgia is still " more powerful 
and striking/ In that case, not merely an act of Congress, but a Solemn 



[ 1ST ] 


treaty of the United States was set aside and abrogated. That treaty 
had long protected the Indians in their peculiar usages and customs, and 
much to the annoyance and injury of Georgia. The state of Georgia, at 
length, unable to endure any longer the existing state of tilings, denied 
the right of the federal government to perpetuate usages and customs 
conflicting with her laws, and passed an act extending her own laws over 
the Indians within her limits,and incorporating them with the rest of her 
population, and thus effectually destroyed the treaty between the federal 
government and the Indians. Similar laws were passed by Mississippi and 
Alabama in relation to the Indians within their limits. And what was 
the effect of all these nullifying laws? Has the union been dissolved ? 
Has the country been involved in civil war and anarchy? No sir! Mr. 
Jefferson (the author ot the Kentucky resolutions) recognized the right of 
Massachusetts and Connecticut to annul a law which they deemed un¬ 
constitutional, and, instead of attempting to enforce the embargo, he 
caused it to be repealed. Mr. Adams did indeed talk about coercing 
Georgia, but public indignation withered the attempt, and the enlightened 
patriotism of Andrew Jackson has since recognized the rights and sup 
ported the sovereignty of the state, and the final result was the passage ot 
the Indian bill, in which Georgia obtained a decisive and memorable tri¬ 
umph. Here then are instances in which nullification has been practiced, 
and practiced successfully. Here are conclusive precedents to prove 
that the doctrine is no vain theory or idle speculation. Those states 
were aggrieved by unconstitutional laws. They stood upon their reserved 
rights—they asserted their sovereignty—and they triumphed. Why 
should South Carolina be deterred from the exercise ol the same power? 
Has she not equal and even greater cause ? Is she not as much and even 
more injured and oppressed than they were? Why then should she hesi¬ 
tate to imitate their examples ? Why, because, it is said, force may be 
employed to reduce her to submission. Those who think so have certain¬ 
ly neither properly considered the true structure of our government, nor 
the character or condition of our opponents. The president may, indeed, 
employ force to put down a rebellion. He may call out the mili¬ 
tia to suppress such movements, by irregular and unauthorized mobs, 
as the whiskey insurrection in Pennsylvania, or what is commonly 
known by the name of Shay’s rebellion. In such cases South Carolina 
would herself assist him, as Pennsylvania did, in the enforcement ol the 
laws. But, sir, we are not now speaking of the lawless tumults of a moo, 
but of the solemn and authoritative proceedings of a state. And can a 
state rebel? Can a state commit treason? The idea is as degrading 
to the dignity, as it is utterly incompatible with the sovereignty ot the 
states. To suppose that a state can b q jmnished, for refusing submission 
to an unconstitutional law, is to admit, in fact, that it is not a state. Ami 
what state in the union would agree to this? What state in the union b) 
sanctioning coercion in the case of Carolina, would admit the right ot tne 
federal government, under similar circumstances, to coerce herself. 1 M 0 

sir! the idea of coercion is entirely vain. No state would sanction, and 
popular indignation would crush it in a moment. I am perfectly satisfied, 
moreover, that our present president, so far from attempting lorce, would 
defer, as he ought to do, to the sovereign power of the state. A tt ue dis- 
-dple of the Jefferson school, he would not deny a power to a a e, whicn 

18 


L 13S j 

may be exercised by a Court, the creature of the states. He knows lull 
well that if it is not given expressly by the constitution to the states, so 
neither is it given to the court, and that whilst it does not necessarily 
appertain to the functions of the Court, it is an inherent and essential 
attribute of sovereignty in the states (that of the right to protect them¬ 
selves) which they never have, and never can surrender. His conduct in 
the case of Georgia furnishes abundant illustration of his principles upon 
this point; and it affords an ample guaranty, that in our case, as in hers, 
he would surely be found on the side of constitutional right and liberty. 
But, Mr. Chairman, I have a still stronger security than this, that nothing 
like coercion would be attempted against us. It is not that our oppres¬ 
sors would be afraid (they might be ashamed ) to undertake it. I know 
them to be as gallant as any people upon eartn, and our history is full of 
their military glory. No sir! it is not upon their fear, but upon their in¬ 
terest that I rely—upon that very same principle which originally induced 
them to enact the tariff, and which would assuredly induce them to prefer 
compromise and conciliation to the employment of force, in the event of 
any thing like serious or decisive measures upon our part. They know 
that the south is now divided upon the question of resistance—but they 
know, too, that the first attempt at military subjugation would indissolubly 
unite them in a moment. They know too well, that the first sword that 
should be drawn would cleave the union asunder—that the first gun that 
should be fired would sound the funeral knell of the republic. And they 
would pause long, and consider well, before they draw that sword or fire 
that gun. They would calculate, in their turn, the value of the union. 
They would weigh well the comparative loses and profits of coercion.— 
They would soon find the former infinitely greater than the latter. They 
would know too that the enterprize, whilst it would be immensely expen¬ 
sive to them, would be vain and furtile in itself, and inevitably end in 
disunion. And, above all, they would know that whilst disunion would 
open rivers of wealth upon the south, it would be ruinous to them in a pe¬ 
cuniary point of view. They know all this sir—and for these reasons if 
for no others, they would not hazard a dissolution by having recourse to 
violence. I cannot, therefore, and do not believe that nullification, even 
if it should be resorted to by a convention, would at all endanger the 
safety of the union. I believe on the contrary that it would be a peacef ul 
regular and constitutional proceeding—that its regularity- and constitu¬ 
tionality would be recognized and admitted by the other states—and that 
it would finally lead to the general emancipation of the south and to 
another and very glorious triumph of constitutional liberty. But as I 
nave already said, I would leave this matter entirely to the discretion of 
the convention. I would in no way trammel it by a legislative opinion on 
he subject. If the/y think nullification requisite or expedient, thev will 
adopt it. If not, they will confine themselves to the other modes of pro- 
cee mg which I have already designated. In either case I have no doubt 
nat their conduct will be such as to give entire satisfaction to the people. 

• i C ? me novv * ^ r * Chairman, to the last objection to a convention which 
is that a convention would be illimitable, and that, being so, it mHit alter 
?, lu state constitution m a manner highly detrimental to the interests of 
ie ower country. Sir, I regard these positions as utterly untenable and 
* s alt0 S etfler got up for ad captnndwn purposes, am! to defeat the call of 


C 139 ] 

a con vention. I he argument is, that a convention resolves society into 

its onginal elements—that it is illimitable both as to the subjects of its 
action, and as to the manner and extent in which it may act upon them— 
01 , tn other words, that a convention is the people, and can do any thin« 
. 1 . P eo pl e themselves might do, even to the entire abolition of the 
existing order ot things, and the establishment of a new and different sy s¬ 
tem* feuch doctrines as these I conceive to be totally visionary and un¬ 
sound. rhey are flatly contradicted, not only by common sense, but b\ 
the general history and experience of our country. Conventions almost 
without number have been held, some federal and others state, and they 
have invariably been restricted to particular subjects of deliberation. The 
federal convention, which formed the present federal constitution, w’as 
limited to a revision and amendment of the old articles of confederation : 
By the pi esent federal constitution, (art. 5) federal conventions are express ¬ 
ly restricted to proposing amendments to that instrument. The words 
of the constitution are explicit. I hey shall have power merely to pro¬ 
pose amendments, which amendments shall not be valid, as parts of the 
constitution, until they shall be ratified by three fourths of the states. And 
even this limited power of proposing amendments is again specially re¬ 
stricted by a provision which forbad any convention, which might have 
been held prior to the year 1808, from interfering in any way with the 1st 
and 4th clauses in the 9th section of the 1st article: And it is again 
still further restricted by another provision which prohibits a convention 
from depriving any state, without its consent, of its equal suffrage in the 
senate. Here then are special restrictions upon a federal convention: 
and surely if a federal convention can be limited, state conventions may 
be. And we find, accordingly, that they always have been. The objects, 
for which they have been desired, have always been discussed by the 
people and decided on beforehand, and when it has been determined to 
call them, they have always been specially instructed as to the objects or 
purposes for which they are required. Look at the recent instance of 
the Virginia convention. For what was that called P To amend and re¬ 
vise the constitution of Virginia! Had it any other power? No! Could 
it have formed an entirely different species of government—a monarchy 
for instance? No! Were its acts binding without the approval of the 
people? No! the people might have rejected them if they chose. Did it 
resolve society into its original elements? No! the old constitution 
remained of force, until the amendments proposed should be adopted by 
the people. All the brandies of government, and all the affairs of society, 
went on with their usual regularity and harmony: and it is well known 
that the Legislature and convention were actually in session at the same 
time and in the same place, the one administering the government under 
the then existing constitution, whilst the other was engaged in amending 
the constitution. Look also at all the state conventions which were called 
in relation to the federal constitution. They were called expressly to 
consider the propriety of adopting or rejecting it. Had they any other 
power? Couid they have meddled with state constitutions or any other 
matters? unquestionably not. These facts then, I apprehend, are suffi¬ 
cient to show that conventions have been, and that they can be limited. 
And, if all other conventions can be limited, why notours? vv hy, be¬ 
cause it is said, a convention is the people, and there can be no restriction 


i 140 ] 

upon the sovereign authority of the people. Can it be necessary, sir, to 
refute this position. A. convention the people? No sir! A convention, 
as well as the Legislature, is merely compose*! of delegates of the people, 
and the one can he as easily and as effectually restricted as the other. 
Does anyone doubtthat the people could instruct a convention as to the 
subjects to be mooted, or restrict them as to the course to be pursued ?— 
He who doubts this, doubts the power of the people with a vengeance! 
Or does any one doubt the right of the people to delegate their power over 
a convention to a subordinate body ? {apprehend not. What then is 
the true answer to this argument? Why, that the people originally pos¬ 
sessed the power to call, and consequently to instruct and restrict a 
convention, but that, according to our constitution, they have delegated 
that power to the Legislature, and that the Legislature, consequently, 
now possesses all the powers in relation to a convention which the people 
themselves originally had. And this power of restricting a convention 
results, moreover, from the very nature of things, ami from the obvious 
necessity of the case itself. To call a convention, without designating 
the purpose for which it is called, would be absurd, and would indeed 
throw society into chaos and confusion. To designate the purpose for 
which it is called, is to restrict it to that purpose. There can be no 
greater fallacy, in relation to this matter, than to suppose that the Legis¬ 
lature is inferior to a convention ; and yet many, upon the strength of 
this supposition, ridicule the idea than an agent or inferior may control its 
principal or master. The Legislature, according to our constitution, is 
not only not inferior, but actually superior to a convention, at least as 
regard its subjects of deliberation. The Legislature, in relation to those 
points, represents the people in the most emphatic and comprehensive 
signification ofthe word. The people have delegated the power to the 
Legislature to call a convention, and the Legislature, of course, in calling 
a convention, represents the people—acts lor the people—in the name of 
the people—with ail the authority of the people—and has, necessarily, the 
same control over the proceedings of a convention, which the people 
themselves would have, if they acted directly for themselves, instead of 
mediately and indirectly through the agency of the Legislature. But i 
think it unneccssai), All. Chairman, to insist farther upon this topic 5 and 
yet, if authority be wanted, I am fully sustained by the authority (hi<>h 
with our opponents) of our distinguished senator, Smith. In his la*te 
address “to the good people” of this state, he says, distinctly, that 
he could have wished to have been a member of a convention,’limit¬ 
ed to remonstrance and limited in its duration to a single session. 
He, at least, then, entertains no doubt that a convention can be 
limited—limited as to its mode of action—and even as to time. And 
surely if a convention can be limited to a particular course of pro¬ 
ceeding in relation to our federal concerns, it can be limited to the 
consideration of those concerns alone. It is evident, at all events that 
even if a convention should so far forget its duty, or disobey its instruc¬ 
tions, as to touch upon matters other than those committed to it, its acts 
would be totally invalid without the sanction of the Legislature. ’ Even if 
it were to meddle with the constitution, all that it could do would be to 
propose alterations. No proposed alteration would be valid as part of 
the constitution, except it should be ratified bv two thirds ofthe whole 


14 1 1 




.. 


representation in the Legislature: and it is uianifest, therefore, that m* 
innovation, dangerous or inconvenient to the lower country, can be effect- 
ed, as long as our state constitution remains as it is. But, Mr. Chairman, 
I have no fear upon this subject. I not only believe that a convention can 
and will be limited, but I am persuaded, even if it could not, that it would 
not, at a time like this, transcend the objects for which it is desired. I 
believe that it would be composed entirely of patriots and statesmen,—se¬ 
lected for their wisdom, integrity and experience—deeply affected at the 
alarming and degraded condition of our state—anxious only to recover 
the constitutional rights of our people—and who would disdain, at such a 
time, to do any thing which could possibly cripple the energy of the state, 
or disturb the popular concord so essential to success. 1, tor one, will 
implicitly trust my fellow citizens of the interior—trust them with my 
own, and with the destinies of the section of the state in which I live, and 
which I have the honor in part to represent. I regard them as triends, 
not as foes—not as men who would attempt to injure the lower country 
lor the benefit of the upper, but as brothers and countrymen who would 
cordially co-operate with us in endeavors to rescue the whole state trom 
the dangers and evils which surround it. And I entreat the members 


from the lower country to discard such apprehensions as equally unfound¬ 
ed in themselves, and injurious to the enlightened patriotism of the upper 
country. Let them be assured that there is not a man of the interior who 
would not repel the unjust imputation with disdain. 

I have thus, Mr. Chairman, endeavoured to obviate the objections re¬ 
specting a convention. I have endeavoured to prove that this is the pro- 
jier time to call a convention—that a convention, even without nullifying 
might do much good—that nullification, should it adopt that measure, 
would be a peaceful and constitutional proceeding—and that the conven¬ 
tion can and would be limited to the exclusive consideration of our fede¬ 
ral relations. But there is one argument which I have not yet noticed, 
and which merits a reply. It is that the doctrine of nullification involves 
the absurdity of supposing that one state may control the operations of 
the remaining twenty three; that if South Carolina has a right to annul 
the tariff acts°, Ohio‘would have an equal right to annul the land laws, 
Tennessee the bank act, and other states all such other laws as they may 
determine to be oppressive—and that this, of course, would reduce the 
federal government to a cypher—to a mere name without power or autho¬ 
rity. But, Mr. Chairman^ it does not follow that because one state, in a 
case of °rievous oppression and under a most dangerous violation of the 
federal compact, should adopt this course, it would therefore be resorted 
to by others Without equal right or similar necessity. It does not follow 
that because we resist an unconstitutionally y therefore other states should 
resist constitutional laws, even if they are partial and oppressive. The 
presumption on the contrary is, that no state would proceed to such an 
extremity, except in cases clearly unconstitutional as well as intolerably 
o-rievous" In fact, so far from states flying rashly or eagerly to this re¬ 
source, it is with very great difficulty that they can be persuaded to resort 
to it at all. They are always disposed to bear, as long as evils can possibly 
be borne. They would rather continue to hope on, even against hope it¬ 
self, than make a vigorous effort to redress their wrongs. Every thing in 
ftet*is against their acting, and nothing but the sense of injury in favor el 




[ H2 ] 

it. Ail tiie power ot the federal government—the influence of official sta¬ 
tion—popular outcries of anarchy anti bloodshed—the combined influ¬ 
ence of party presses—the hope of returning justice or magnanimity in 
Congress—all these with many other causes of a similar kind, will always 
retard and embarrass the movements of a state, and prove the exceeding 
difficulty of placing her under any circumstances, in an actual position of 
resistance. You may rest assured then Mr. Chairman, that so far from 
states annulling acts of Congress capriciously or lightly, it will never be 
done until after long and intolerable suffering, and in cases of dangerous 
infraction of the compact, and after every other mode of redress shall 
have been used in vain. And who would deny this power to a state, after 
long and intolerable suffering, and after long and mortifying years of fruit¬ 
less petition and remonstrance ? Is it not much more reasonable—much 
more comformable to the true theory of the constitution—that a state should 
have a right to suspend an unconstitutional act which oppresses and en¬ 
slaves it, than that it should have no remedy whatever, short of physical 
resistance, or secession from the union ? Has the majority a right to op¬ 
press the minority at their pleasure, and has the majority, in truth, no 
means whatever of constitutional counteraction ? Has an organized com¬ 
bination in Congress really a right to destroy all the great interests of 
the south, for the purpose of aggrandizing particular interests elsewhere, 
and have we no means of protection short of revolution r Did our south¬ 
ern ancestors agree to such a government as this? No sir. They did 
not. The constitution was formed, not for the majority who might abuse 
power, but for the protection of the minority against its abuse. And it 
has provided such protection : and*Mr. Jefferson, who understood our con¬ 
stitution better than any other man, has expressly told us, that in cases of 
infraction and oppression, the states are themselves the sole and proper 
judges ot the mode and measure of redress, and that the true remedy con¬ 
sists in the nullification of the obnoxious laws. I know no authority against 
this doctrine equal to that of Mr. Jefferson in support of it. And until 
such another expositor shall arise, I, for one, will be perfectly content to 
receive his as the true construction of the constitution. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, the question before us is, shall we call a con¬ 
vention or not ? Has the time arrived, when the people of this state 
should take the consideration of their affairs into their own hands, and 
themselves determine upon a remedy for their grievances? I think it 
has. I think they have no prospect of relief from procrastination or de¬ 
lay. I think that it is utterly delusive to indulge a hope in the returning 
justice of the majority, or in the effect of the presidential vetoes, or from 
the payment of the public debt. I think that there is no circumstance 
whatever to authorize us to believe that any favorable change will be ef¬ 
fected in public opinion or in the policy of Congress. On the contrary, all 
the signs of the times are decidedly against us. The president himself 
supports the principle of the protective policy. Maryland, Ohio, and Ken¬ 
tucky have been deeply convulsed, if not actually turned against him, bv 
his vetoes upon internal improvement bills. Boston has recently electecl 
a manufacturer to Congress, an/1 over a most distinguished champion of 
the free trade cause. The tariff states, in fact, so far from having under¬ 
gone a change, are if possible more than ever devoted to the system. And 
it is natural that they should be. It involves every thins: dear to their 





/ 


t *43 ] 

pride, their ambition, and their avarice. Its profitable effects, too, and its 
real value, are now beginning to be realized. Hitherto the manufacturers 
have had to contend against the immense amount of foreign goods which 
were imported immediately prior to the passage of the tariff, and also 
against the difficulties arising from extensive smuggling. Notwithstand¬ 
ing the tariff, many of them were unable to bear up against these circum¬ 
stances. All of them suffered, and many of them sunk. All those 
foreign goods, however, have now nearly, if not totally, disappeared. Fo- 
reign importation is now effectually checked by our enormous duties, and 
smuggling has also been sensibly diminished by the precautions taken to 
prevent it. The manufacturers, therefore, are now beginning to realize, 
in its fullest extent, the profits of the system, and to reimburse themselves, 
to their hearts content, for the losses they have sustained. And can it be 
expected that they will voluntarily relinquish the system now? Can we 
expect those who have suffered, to forego the prospect which they now 
have of ample remuneration for their losses ? No sir. This is not human 
nature—and he who expects an abandonment of the protective policy from 
any cause less than that of necessity, will most assuredly be deceived. 
Why then should we hesitate to call a convention ? The people wish it— 
the people demand it. Are you afraid to trust the people ? I am not. 
I think they are the best judges of the course to be pursued, and that they 
have a right to determine for themselves. I am perfectly satisfied that 
all that we have yet gained has been entirely owing to the excitement and 
agitation at the south. I believe, that if we go on, we shall continue to 
gain more and more, until we finally succeed in the full restoration of our 
rights. I believe, on the contrary, that if we pause or hesitate now, we 
shall begin to retrograde. It will be regarded by our oppressors as an ac¬ 
knowledgement of their inability to do any thing, and as an evidence of 
division and disfraction amongst ourselves. It will have a bad effect too, 
upon the state of public feeling here, and throughout the whole of the 
southern states. Refuse to call a convention now, and what will the tariff 
majority in Congress care about our complaints or reproaches ? Refuse to 
call a convention now, and what will the other southern states think, or 
how can we hope to unite them effectually with us in the common cause ? 
What good then can we expect from a postponement of this measure? 
None under heaven ? What evils have we to apprehend from it ? What 
evils, sir ? Let those, who would estimate them properly, remember what 
this state once was—consider what it now is—and what it may yet 
become. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, and not many years since 
—when South Carolina possessed and exhibited every thing which 
was calculated to make her children proud and happy. They were 
then free, not in name only, but in reality also. They then lived 
under a government, administered with purity and justice, and known only 
by its blessings. They then lived under a system of equal laws, dispens¬ 
ing impartially the same advantages to all, and they loved their govern¬ 
ment with an attachment almost approaching to idolatry. No sectional 
differences had then separated the states by geographical division. No 
sectional interests had then arisen calculated to alienate affection, and en¬ 
gender discord. No restrictive system then shackled their commerce, 
destroyed their agriculture, and drained them of their wealth. No wretch¬ 
ed fanaticism had then entered the halls of Congress, undermining at 


[ 144 ] 

once the value oftheir property, and the safety of society. They weie 
free and happy in themselves—contented with the conduct of the govern¬ 
ment—-contented with the conduct of their sister states# I heir commcice 
ranged unbounded over every sea, and tlicir planters were amply compen¬ 
sated for their labor. Industry was encouraged—mechanics and artisans 
had full employment—and improvements of all kinds were regularly car¬ 
ried on. Elegance and hospitality dwelt in the houses of the rich, and 
active and rewarded occupation gratified the wishes of the poor. In 
short it was a period which may well be denominated the epoch of Caro¬ 
lina happiness and freedom ; for, look where it would, the eye ot tne ob¬ 
server could behold nothing but tranquility and contentment, and all the 
gratifying indications of steady improvement and prosperity. But those 
times have passed,and, I fear, never to return. Those scenes have changed, 
and, with them, all the affections of our people. No crowded commerce 
now fills our ports. No wealth now rolls in upon us with every breeze 
from Europe. No enterprize or profit now animates our people or rewards 
their toils. The government, once so beloved, is now dreaded and dis¬ 
trusted as an engine of oppression. A system of legislation, barbarous 
and artificial in itself, exploded by other nations, and not less disgraceful 
to our government than it is ruinous to us, has been fixed upon us by the 
selfish and interested combinations of other sections of the union. Under 
this system Carolina has sunk, from all her former opulence and dignity, 
to poverty and degradation. Our commerce has been swept from the 
ocean, and our agriculture paralyzed. Our property, almost valueless 
now, is daily depreciating more and more. Plantations, once immensely 
valuable, have been totally deserted and abandoned—and even the human 
voice is now scarcely heard in places, which were once alive with popula¬ 
tion, and animated equally by elegance and refinement, and active and 
profitable labor. Such is what Carolina once was , and what she now is. 
What she may yet become, l tremble to anticipate. The prospect is all 
dark, and desolate, and dreary. Clouds and thick darkness rest upon it. 
Look where we will, we see nothing but increasing danger, and difiiculy 
and distress—a deep and universal gloom, without a single ray to cheer— 
a single star to guide us through the labyrinth. What then shall we do? 
Shall we submit forever ? Shall we permit the cloudsto gather, and the storm 
to burst, and make no effort to avert it ? Shall we wait until the restrictive 
policy is carried out even to the extent of actual prohibition ? Shall 
we wait until internal improvements are revived, or the new distributive 
project be adopted ? Shall we wait until the colonization society shall be 
regularly incorporated as a branch of the American system, and until the 
majority, after having destroyed the value of our property by emancipa¬ 
tion schemes and doctrines, shali begin to buy it up with our own money, 
forcibly extorted from us by iniquitous taxation? Shall we wait,in short, 
until Carolina, fallen as she is, shall fall still lower, even to the lowest 
depth of colonial vassalage, when she may be too weak, and perhaps even 
too servile to resist: or, shall we now make a peaceful and constitutional, 
but firm and decisive stand upon our rights, and endeavor, whilst some¬ 
thing may yet be done, to procure reparation for the past, and security 
for the future? It is a most solemn and momentous question. I entreat 
the committee to pause before they vote upon it. It is no common subject 
of ordinary legislation, but one which involves the destinies of our l>cle v - 


[ 145 j 

ed state. It is the great question of liberty or slavery: of iuturc 
prosperity and freedom, or poverty and enslavement, for ourselves and 
our children. I conjure the committee to pause before they decide it. 
I conjure them, by their patriotism, not to give up the state, at this very 
crisis of her fate. I conjure them, as Carolinians, not to allow her to be 
bound an unresisting victim for the sacrifice. I conjure them, by their 
love of liberty and their hatred of injustice—by all their own rights and 
hopes, and the rights and hopes of their posterity—-not to recede now. 
To go on, is peace, and honor, and safety, and success. To recede, is 
certain shame, certain additional danger, certain additional imposition. 
I go for the call of a convention. God grant that those who oppose it 
may never be compelled, by still more grievous and intolerable outrages, 
to iesort to measures infinitely more to be deprecated and avoided. 


THOMAS WILL [AMS’ JUNR. SPEECH 

Mr. Williams said, in considering the questions before the committee, 
he would steadily endeavor to remember, that the object of all discussion 
was elucidation : that this recollection would greatly aid in keeping him 
honestly to the main question; while he would only desire to afford such 
light as his observation and reflection would enable him to give: he said, 
he should also endeavor to remember, that we were all brethren—the 
people of one state, united by one interest, and affected alike in property, 
character and liberty. This recollection, he said, would aid in keeping 
out all unkind feeling and tart expressure; and although he might differ 
in opinion with gentlemen, yet this difference should be expressed with 
that moderation and temper, becoming the consideration of the grave 
question submitted to the committee. Air. W. said, he was also bound to 
remember, that much time had already been spent in debate; and as many 
other gentlemen more able than himself were yet in reserve, and desirous 
to be heard; he should consider the privilege now allowed him, more as a 
matter of courtesy and indulgence, than from any hope that he should 
enlighten the committee, or aid them in their deliberations; that this 
should induce him to be as concise as possible, and to urge none other 
arguments than such as he felt compelled to do, in discharging any thing 
like his duty. The proposition, said Mr. W. before the committee, mani¬ 
festly is, shall the Legislature call a convention of the people ? In the dis¬ 
cussion of this question many others necessarily arise and must be con¬ 
sidered—among the questions necessary to be considered is, first—what 
is the state of the public mind upon this subject? It has been truly said 
that South Carolina can only be efficient by a cordial harmony among 
her sons.” But sir, her sons are divided, and her councils distracted- 
party spirit rages to a height unknown before among us, winding its 
course through our towns and villages, entering into families, destroying 
the harmony of neighborhoods, violating the peace of society, and break- 
in nr the strongest cords of private friendship—dark suspicion lurks in 
every bosom, and hateful names are fixed upon the most pure and.pxalt- 
ed characters—new parties are created,and old onesai c bioken up those 

19 


L 146 J 

who before used “to take sweet council together,” are now thrown asun¬ 
der, and others, who formerly stood high as patriots, are now charged as 
deserters from their country's glory. Ihis commotion still continues, 
and rises higher and higher, until this government is shaken to its v ^rv 
centre. Sir, let it not be thought that this distraction is confined to tins 
house, it runs through the whole state, and acts more or less every where. 
Mr. W. said the strength of this spirit could be seen strongly manifested 
in the general elections. Some districts making entire returns of mem¬ 
bers of one opinion, while the adjoining districts make entire returns of 
members of a different opinion; and other districts are found divider 
among themselves, and sending members, differing in sentiment, and when 
here arraying themselves with their respective parties, and preparing to 
move and act as the advancement of their side of the question may re 
quire. Mr. W. said he would now ask gentlemen, if in this high state ol 
public excitement, both in this committee and among the people, there 
can be found any thing like that “cordial harmony” which should exist, 
to justify present action by the state. It is well knowu that a large and 
respectable portion of the good people of this state, are directly opposed 
to the call of a convention. In the populous city of Charleston, upon a 
late election where the question was made, only a majority of about 150 
are found in favor of convention, and perhaps upon the next trial the 
majority will be found upon the other side.* Mr, W. said he would now 
ask the honorable members of this committee, who are from districts in 
favor of convention, if they are prepared to cali a convention in opposition 
to the opinions and wishes of a large portion of the people of this state? 
Are the honorable members from Edgefield, Newberry and Pendleton 
ready and willing to force a convention upon the people of Laurens, Green¬ 
ville, Spartanburgh and Chester, and all the districts in the eastern part 
of the state, contrary to their wishes, and in opposition to their express 
opinions? *Do gentlemen expect their wishes to succeed against the 
wishes of the people? Do they expect the aid and support of the people 
against their own wills? Or can they hope for the success of their mea¬ 
sures without the support of the people? But can gentlemen even hope 
to be sustained by a people divided? Under the highest excitement, and 
governed by the most angry feelings? No sir, said Mr. YV. to ensure 
success, we must be united, “in thought, in word and in deed.” Mr. W. 
said he did not intend to say, that there should be no dissenting voice, 
but he did intend to say that the majority should be so large and over¬ 
whelming as to effectually put down the weak opposition of an insignifi¬ 
cant few. But sir, the honorable gentleman from Richland (Mr. Preston; 
has told us, that “this is a political experiment, and he prays God that it 
may succeed.” For one, he (Mr. W.) was not willing to speculate upon 
the chances of fate in favor of, or against his country; he must have some 
certain evidence, at least satisfactory, that the proposed measure would 
succeed; he cannot doubt, if he does, he will not act; he must see 
before him to a reasonable certainty that all is right, and therefore will 
end well. But it is further said, “ the call of a convention will cure every 
thing—public opinion will become settled—the people will act wisely in 


*It is since known, that Mr. Pettignie, an anti-convention candidate, succeeded 
ove&Mr. Lawrence, his opponent bva large majoritv 






t 147 ] 

choosing their delegates—the wisdom and power of the state will be con¬ 
centrated, and that wisdom and power will devise the proper remedy, and 
that this will settle down the public mind either to submit or resist. Sir, 
all this seems very plausible, but one moments examination, and it will 
vanish into air—a convention must be made up of delegates chosen from 
among the people—those chosen must be of the same minds and opinions 
of the people making the choice. To suppose that the people would 
choose delegates, differing from them in opinions would be absurd. A 
convention then would be composed of as much opposition and cross 
opinions as now exists among the people. They would come here with 
theviewsand opinions of that portion of the people among whom they live, 
and by whom they were chosen. Party spirit raging among the people, would 
rage amongthe delegates, divisions and oppositions among the people would 
exist among the delegates, and of course all the rage of party, of commotion 
and excitement would be brought together, and thus your convention, in¬ 
stead of being a grave assembl y of deliberative men, consulting and acting 
together for their country’s glory, would be split up by sectional views, 
divided by party spirit, counteracting the efforts and paralizing the acts of 
each other, until sick of strife they would return home with having done 
nothing, but left the state in a tenfold worse situation than before. But 
how Ct'Tn a convention quiet the people, and settle public opinion ? This 
depends upon the question, what lias given rise to the excitement now 
prevailing? What has induced this great difference in the opinions of 
the people of our state? Upon examination,said Mr. W. it will be found 
that the simple question of convention or no convention iias given rise to 
all the difference of opinion now existing. And how can the call of a 
convention settle that difference of opinion ? Will the call of a con¬ 
vention, the very thing which a large portion of the people so much 
deprecate satisfy them ? Will it quiet them ? The very question which 
has divided friends, and torn asunder the most sacred ties, will it unite 
them? Impossible ! this would be to contend that the effect destroys the 
cause—that the conquered should love the conquerers and become attach¬ 
ed to them, not because they thought them right, but simply because they 
had conquered. Sir, said Mr. W. gentlemen would do well to consider 
correctly, upon the difference between that which has divided the people, 
and produced so much excitement; and that, which has caused the complaints 
of the people to be heard from one end of the state to the other. Mr. W. 
asked what had divided the honorable gentleman from Richland (Mr. Pres¬ 
ton) and himself? The simple question of convention or no convention. 
It a convention should not be called, will the honorable gentleman be sat¬ 
isfied ? Will it quiet him ? If a convention should be called, could the hon¬ 
orable gentleman expect that he, Mr. W. would be satisfied? But sir, 
what has caused the complaint of that honorable gentlemen ?—not whether 
we shall call a convention, that is not the ground of his complaint—but it is* 
that thelawsofthe United States, called the tariff laws, are “ unconstitution¬ 
al, unjust and oppressive.” In this, Mr. W.said he agreed with the honora¬ 
ble gentlemen most perfectly, and complained as loudly as he could do ; 
and with this do all our citizens to a certain extent. Mr. W. said be be¬ 
lieved that although the honorable gentleman just alluded to, and himself, 
might not differ on the subject of our complaints, yet Mr. W. believed 
that when the people came to assign the causes of their complaints, there 


[ MB ] 

would be found this ostensible difference. W e, said Mr. W., complain ol 
the unconstitutionality of those laws, while the people will be found com¬ 
plaining of their oppression. Sir, examine this matter—if Congress had 
the undoubted power to pass these laws, would gentlemen insist that a 
convention of the people could remedy the evil ? Would they do more 
than say it was an unjust and oppressive exercise of a constitutional pow¬ 
er ? Would they not tell you that your only relief was either by an appeal 
to the justice of Congress, or by an amendment of the constitution of the 
United States, or by revolution ? Mr. W. said he presumed no other 
voice or sentiment would be heard by this committee. Then sir, should 
not the true grounds of our complaint be, that, these laws are unconstitu¬ 
tional r And yet is this the ground? If so, will gentlemen be pleased 
to tell us, what is the reason that the act of Congress establishing a bank, 
and all other acts appropriating money for the purposes of internal im¬ 
provement have not produced complaints ? Such complains as the tariffs 
of ? 24 and *28. Sir, said Mr.^W. is there any south end man at this day, 
whose eyes are not blinded by pecuniary interest, or whose judgment is 
not forestaled by hasty and inconsiderate opinions, previously expressed, 
and whose pride for consistency, now urges him on, will venture the opin¬ 
ion, that Congress has the power to charter a bank, and that the general 
government may become a stock holder ? Would they not have the same 
pow er to enter into copartnership in the sale of merchandize, the traffic 
in slaves, or pursue any other speculation which might be deemed advan¬ 
tageous by Congress ? If Congress has not the power to charter a bank, 
the act upon that subject is as much a violation of the constitution, as 
the laws on the subject of the tariff. And if the infringement of consti¬ 
tutional liberty be the ground of complaint, we should complain equally 
against the act of Congress charting a bank (and the acts of Cono-ress for 
appropriating money tor internal improvement now every where admitted 
to be unconstitutional,; that we do against the tariff laws so called. Yet 
wil any one venture the assertain, that, the act of Congress charting this 
bank, has produced any complaint among the people of this state ? If the 
reply is, the bank has not oppressed us, the point is yielded for which 
Mr. W said he was contending-namely, that it is not the unconstitu- 

M, n w J c °-1 a T- a§a ! n .f Vvhidl the P eo P le complain, but its oppressions. 

. 1 . V . said he believed the supposed oppressions under which the people 

believed they suffered, had produced much, if not all the dissatisfaction 
now prevailing through this state. This view, he said, would be greatly 
strengthened when we enquire into the prevailing opinion on the subject 
of our oppressions from the tariff laws: to which°may well be added J £e 

C P hairm n an W Mr" w"7hT ^ Up °7 ,S ; Let M * remembered Mr. 
Chairman, said Mr. W. that opinions, whether of individuals or commu- 

nities, aieloimed upon tacts stated or testified to; and the opinion when 
^oimed always influence, when formed upon undoubteditesUmor.t/. Whe¬ 
ther the testimony be true or false, does not alter the case, but whether 
e loved or not. Now sir, what is the evidence on which the public mind 

! J nia ' i e -7’ u P°. n th ,? sub J. ect ol 0l11 ' oppressions, under the tariff laws and 
the sp.nt in which these aws are fixed upon us ? One of our members i 

Congress, a gendeman ofh.gh and distinguished character, says “Imain- 
tam that an impost duty upon these articles ot foreign mercSdise which 
are received exchange for the domestic prod,,c%“ ?"e dam n 


I 149 J 

elates, is precisely equivalent in the existing state of our coiuinercial re¬ 
lations to an export duty levied upon the productions of those states.” — 
By this same gentlemen we are also told that this average duty is 45 per 
cent. In this information this gentleman is fully sustained by a printed 
pamphlet, entitled, an exposition of the tariff laws, and which has been 
laid before the people of South Carolina, and supposed generally, though 
not truly, to have had the sanction of the Legislature of this state. These 
facts as published and declared have spoken volumes to the people. They 
have been received as undoubted truths. And the universal understand¬ 
ing and belief is, that the producer ot the export pays a tax of 45 per cent, 
upon the product ot his labor. There is no difficulty sir in seeing at 
once, if this statement be true , that a system so onerous, must end in the 
“ absolute annihilation of the rights and interest of the planting states.” 
So much tor the oppression. Upon the subject of the spirit with which 
these laws are fixed upon us, the evidence is equally high and satisfactory 
to the people ot this state. The same gentleman upon this subjct tells 
us, that “no man who will reflect upon this system (the tarifi’) for the 
last twelve years can indulge the slightest hope that it will ever be aban¬ 
doned by those who have imposed it upon us. From year to year the 
duties have been increased, and the system extended, and at each succes¬ 
sive enlargement of the circle of monopoly the majority in Congress lias 
uniformly increased. So far from perceiving any indication of a reaction 
here, (in Congress) it seems obvious to me, that the more odious and op¬ 
pressive and intolerable the system is rendered to the people of that por¬ 
tion of the union, whose rights it grossly violates and whose interests it is 
calculated to destroy, the more determined and obstinate are the majority 
in adhering to it, and extending its operation.” Now it is true, said Mr. 
W. notone word is said in all the above upon the unconstitutionality of 
the tarifi laws; but stronger language cannot be well used, to shew the 
wicked and hostile spirit in which these laws are fixed upon us—every 
hope of redress from Congress is cut off—the duties are said to be increas¬ 
ed from year to year; as the circle of monopoly enlarges, the majority in 
Congress increases; the more odious, oppressive, and intolerable the sys¬ 
tem becomes, the more determined are the majority to extend its opera¬ 
tions; until in the language of this same gentleman, there is an “absolute 
annihilation of our rights and interests. 

Now sir, are we, said Mr. W. to be surprised at the clamor we hear 
trom all parts of the state upon the subject of the tariff, when facts like 
these are laid before the public: coming as they do from such high autho- 
rity, pronounced on the floor of Congress, and published and sent all over 
the state? What people sir, would not become indignant at such out¬ 
rage? What people would not rise up in rebellion against such oppres¬ 
sion ? And sir, let it also be remembered, that these statements receive 
greater force, seeing that the gentleman marking them, has brought all his 
powers into action to sustain them by arguments. It is but just to say, 
that his arguments are ingenious and plausible, and as they are upon a sub¬ 
ject not well understood by the great body of the people, they must take 
for true those things which they cannot prove to be untrue ; and thus a 
subject is forced home upon us, and we are compelled to act upon the mere 
dictum of other men. But sir, said Mr. W. no one could have heard the 
honorable gentleman from Charleston (Mr. Huger,) upon this subject, 


t 150 j 

whose mind has not settled down upon a clear conviction, that the pro¬ 
ducer pays no duty upon imports but that the whole duty is paid by the 
consumer. At the bottom then sir, of all the complaints of our people, lies 
this error ; and so soon as they shall rightly understand the effect of the 
tariff, their objections will settle down upon the proper point, its unconsti¬ 
tutionality. The violent clamoring and discontent which now every 
where prevails, will then every where cease, and tranquility will be once 
more restored to the public mind, and then, and not till then, can the peo¬ 
ple of this state act efficiently. 

Let us now sir, said Mr. W. approach a little nearer to the main ques¬ 
tion before us, and inquire it the call of a convention can give us the relief 
needed. 'This depends upon what a convention can or will do. What 
can a convention do? Mr. W. said he should not deny but that it is 
the right of the people of the state in convention, either in mass or by 
delegates, to separate from the union. This is certainly one of the powers 
incident to sovereignty, and as the sovereignty of the states is not denied 
at this day (although certain politicians have done so in days that are past 
and gone,) it will be unnecessary to discuss that questiou now. But gen¬ 
tlemen who are in favor of calling a convention, deny their object to be 
separation—they denyed it before the people, and they deny it here—it 
would be impious then to charge them with it now. Mr. W. said for his 
part he would do no such thing—he believed gentlemen when they said 
they did not wish or intend to seperate. But it is said a convention can and 
will declare the tariff laws of ’24 and ’28 to be unconstitutional. Suppose 
this to be done, what good can result therefrom ? Has this not been done 
times and ways without number in this state? Has not the Legislature 
been doing so, since 1825, and that against the will and the vote of some 
gentlemen now of this committee, and who have strangely changed sides, 
(perhaps to go with the strongest party) and who are now wildly raving for 
convention? Have not the people by their public meetings, and by their 
petitions in numberless shapes and forms done so ? In short has not the 
public opinion been long known and expressed upon this subject? Do 
we not now see the only few, the leaders of an opposite doctrine in 1825, 
turning entirely round, and going far ahead of the radicals of that day, and 
wishing now as they did then, to lead the van of the state, acknowledging 
their enoisin the most public manner? Do you not see the real radicals, 
the name which was odious in 1825, maintaining their same ground at 
this day ? And sir is not all this as high evidence of public opinion upon 
this subject as any decision made by a convention can be ? If a conven¬ 
tion is to be called for mere puff and blast, Mr. W. said, he for one would 
not agiee to it he said we had puffed long enough, it was now time to act 
mote firmly—-gentlemen have already told us, that “factionists had got 
the state into difficulties, and that patriots now had to get her out of 
them. But sir, suppose a convention declares the tariff laws to be un¬ 
constitutional, what then ? Will Congress be compelled to repeal them ? 
If Congress is to be governed by the states, unless the other states would 
also declare these laws unconstitutional, she would be bound not to repeal 
them foi will it be pretended, that if one state has the power to declare 
these laws|unconstitutional, and thus compel Congress to repeal, that anoth¬ 
er state has not an equal power to declare them constitutional, and thus 
prevent theii repeal ? And upon this principle, does not the simple fact. 


[ 151 J 

mat the tariff remains unrepealed, produce conclusive evidence, that a 
majority ot the states hold the tariff* laws to be constitutional ? Sir, said 
IVlr. W. no good can result from a convention declaring the tariff" laws to 
be unconstitutional, except that it be for the purpose as the gentleman 
Irom Richland (Mr. Preston) says, to send their decision to the Legisla¬ 
ture, and then let that body « nullify ,” and sir, said Mr. W. their can no 
good reason be assigned for this course, because the Legislature of a state 
either has the power to nullify an act of Congress, or she has not the 
power. II the power to nullity does not exist, can a convention give that 
Power ? But here it is not pretended for the convention to do more than 
to decide the acts ot Congress to be unconstitutional. If the Legislature 
has the power to nullify, why call a convention? Why not let°the Le¬ 
gislature act at once? Why obstruct and impede the act or powers of 
the Legislature by calling a convention, and then getting the veto of that 
body? Mr. W. said, gentlemen must be hard pressed when they were 
driven to such evasions. Mr. W. said, he had heretofore thought, and 
should continue to think, until otherwise convinced, that to do an act 
which will not give relief, is doing nothing. He therefore proposed to 
enquire, whether or not the act ot nullification could give the relief need¬ 
ed? And what sir, said Mr. W. do we need? Deliverance from an un¬ 
constitutional and oppressive law of Congress. Mr. W. said, he had al¬ 
ready shewn, that the decision of a state cannot operate upon Congress, 
where a majority of the states are in favor of the law. The call of a con¬ 
vention then cannot relieve us, upon this principle, even through the act 
of nullification, because it is not more than the decision of a single state. 
But let us see how it will operate. Mr. W. said, he would henf explain 
what he understood by “ nullification.” Suppose a convention is called, 
delegates are elected, and they assemble, and after the necessary and pre¬ 
paratory steps to business, they declare in the most solemn manner, that 
the taritflavvs of ’24 and ’28 are unconstitutional and void, and they re¬ 
commend the governor of the state to call the Legislature together. Sup¬ 
pose all this to be done, and the Legislature being assembled, unanimous¬ 
ly (if you choose) redeclare these laws of Congress to be a violation of 
the constitution of the United States—declare them null and void, and 
absolve all the people of South Carolina, and also all others trading to and 
with her, from the payment of the duties required to be paid by these acts 
of Congress. I his, Mr. W. said, he thought was allowing every thing 
which gentlemen in favor of this doctrine would ask for. But sir, it is to 
be remembered said Mr. W. that laws unexecuted produce no good effect 
—they had as well not be passed. I'liey are like threats unexecuted—— 
they harm no one except he who makes them. This act of nullification 
then, to benefit the people of South Carolina, must be carried into execu¬ 
tion 5 and this must either be done by peaceable means or by force, or it 
remains a dead letter on your statute book, to your shame and disgrace. 
All will see that unless the act is enforced some how or other, it cannot 
give relief—the people must be relieved from the payment of the duty or 
suffer under its oppressions—and now the question is, would relief be giv¬ 
en through this act of the Legislature, and this by peaceable means—for 
gentlemen do not pretend that they will fight, they only contend for "the 
right to fight.” To our question then, how will you enforce your act of nul¬ 
lification, we are answered, that the importer of foreign merchandize, and 


j 152 ] 

who is liable in the first instance to pay this duty, gives his bond to the 
collector of customs for the amount of duty, that when (he bond becomes 
due, he is to refuse payment, and upon suit brought he is to plead, (it is sup¬ 
posed) this act of nullification in bar to the action, and the jury icill find 
a verdict for the defendant. If a new trial is granted, another verdict will 
be found for the defendant, and thus it is to be continued until Congress 
shall be compelled to repeal the odious law'. It does seem to me sir, said 
Mr. W. that there is not a man in the whole world, of common sense and 
reflection, and who has thought one minute upon this matter, could ever be 
reconciled to such a doctrine as this—In the first place sir, you require 
the merchant importing the goods to do an act disgraceful in itself—He is 
required to execute a bond and to give security that he will pay to the 
government of the United States a certain sum of money on a given day, 
when at the very time of its execution he secretly determines not to pay 
it , if by any means he can avoid it—In the second place, the state holds 
out to the general government that the duty will be paid by allowing the 
bond to be given, and then you lend your judicial powers as a state to 
prevent its recovery and payment—can any sovereign power escape dis¬ 
grace by such a course of conduct ? But sir, let us pass this by—and en¬ 
quire how will this act of nullification, and this trial by jury operate upon 
the conduct to be pursued by the importing merchant? 

Let ustake a case—A. imports $100,000 worth of goods to Charleston 
—by Mr. M‘l)uffie ? s rule he pays an average duty of40 per cent.: thus 
the amount of duty he would have to pay is $40,000, for this amount he 
gives his bond—this bond the merchant does not intend to pay if he can 
avoid it—but if the jury should find against him, then he must pay it —and 
that this might happen no one would be hardy enough to deny; now what 
are the chances for the jury to find for him?—Simply that the acts of 
Congress is unconstitutional—and of this opinion must be the jury—But 
is this not a question of law, who will say it is not ? If it be a question of 
law, who must decide that question, the judge or the jury? If the judge 
is not to decide questions of law, what is he to decide? questions of 
fact? No sir, the facts are for the jury, and the law for the judge. Now 
even the most zealous gentlemen for this trial by jury* tell us that the 
judge, nay all judges sitting as such, must decide that the tariff laws are 
constitutional—-because they say that the judges in construing the law 
cannot go beyond its letter—That they cannot enter into the motives and 
inducements of Congress for passing these laws, and that as the constitu¬ 
tion gives the power to “Congress to lay and collect duties,* 5 &c. and the 
tariff laws are only for the laying and collection of duties upon their face, 
that therefore all judges as well our own as the judges of the federal court 
must decide them to be constitutional, and of course must so charge the 
jury. Here then the charge of the presiding judge upon the question of 
law, must be directly against the merchant—does this not at least render 
it doubtful whether the merchant would not have to pay his bond? But 
is not this uncertainty increased when we remember, that jury’s may be 
found, and in fact many will be, who maintain also that these laws are 
constitutional, and of course would find against the merchant ? Now the 
question is, what effect will this state of uncertainty with regard to the 
verdict have upon the merchant? Remember, his goods has cost him 
$100,000: bis bond is out for $40,000—if he should have his bond to pav 


that amount must be added to the. first cost, or then he sustains a loss to 
the amount of his bond—will not the merchant to guard against this possi¬ 
ble nay probable danger, add the duty to the first cost, and thus mark 
and sell his goods as costing $140,000 ? Surely a prudent merchant would. 
Now let it be remembered it is the addition of this duty to the first cost, 
which renders the tariff so oppressive upon the consumer. Thus, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, the same burthens would be continued upon the people of the state 
as well after as before the act of nullification. Now if the object of nulli¬ 
fication be to relieve us of these burdens but could not, it lollows that an 
act of nullification would be an act of folly. But sir, said Mr. W. these 
are notour only objections to this system—I have, said Mr. W. as high a 
regard for the trial by jury as any citizen can have, and as much confi¬ 
dence in their verdicts, but still am unwilling to submit questions ot this 
kind into the hands of twelve men chosen as our jury’s are; by lot. If the 
fate of the country is to be decided by twelve men, we can fix upon a more 
prudent and safe mode of choosing them than by lot; by this course sir, 
twelve of the most ignorant and unworthy men in the community, might 
be drawn to fix and settle the fate of our country—lo this Mr. \\ . said for 
one, he could not, and would not assent—But sir, this course is so uncer¬ 
tain, that it fixes nothing, and is therefore totally unbecoming the sove¬ 
reignty of a state—-Sir, it argues a want of moral courage on the part ot 
the state, which is degrading. If the laws ot Congress are unconstitu¬ 
tional and oppressive, and the Legislature have the right and the power lo 
nullify them; and it is expedient and proper to do so: why not at once put 
ourselves upon our sovereign right; and it we perish, perish it will be in a no¬ 
ble and glorious cause—contending for our rights and liberties handed to 
us bv our fathers, secured and sealed with their blood—why then should 
we submit them to a jury?—does the history ot the world furnish such a 
case? Sir, it does not—but sir, the gentlemen themselves who are most 
zealous for this course can have no confidence in it. Mr. W. said lie would 
now put a question to those gentlemen, and they could answer it to then 
consciences and their God. Would either ot the gentlemen contending 
for this doctrine, sign a bond as security tor the importing merhant, not 
knowing whether he was solvent or insolvent, but always, and sme \ 
resting upon the probability or rather certainty that the jury would al¬ 
ways find for the defendant. If gentlemen would not, it proves clearly, 
with ail their zeal, they have no confidence in the measure and theie oi o 
fitly call it “apolitical experiment.” Sir, gentlemen are now asked, 
how they can consistently adopt a measure m which they have no assur¬ 
ance or confidence of success—do gentlemen pursue dus couioc ..iiougi 
life, even in ordinary transactions, and sir, would any ot us dare pursue 
and recommend to others a course involving the peace and prosperity ot 
our country, when we would not do so in our own private aflans• 

But sir, said Mr. W. there are Other objections to this system, ltu may 
be called one. Already lias public excitement been carried too high upo 
this matter—discussions unreasonably warm have divided the neaicst an .1 
dearest friends—and how long would not this system continue U 
Besides, the prodigious anxiety and excitement such atm 1 woujid Produce 
in the community; no one could anticipate. I nc aigumai ~ 
ami con, the charge of the judge, the comments and opm.ions o, spectatms. 
■•raiiM all he well calculated to produce and keep up hat rate cd . *•> * • 


[ 164 ] 

nt» so destructive to the peace and prosperity of a community. And in 
this state of public commotion, could there be any thing like that stability 
and certainty necessary to an advantageous commerce. Mr. W. said there 
were so many and insurmountable objections to the doctrine of trial by 
jury, that it appeared to him no man of common sense, upon reflection, 
could be satisfied to try it even as an « experiment .” 

Mr. W. said, he had other objections to this doctrine of nullification, 
and which he would beg leave briefly to lay before the committee. 

It is said the government of the United States is one of limited powers: 

' O this Mr. W. said he did most cordially agree, and that it was strange, 
that any one wno had thought upon the subject should come to any other 
conclusion. He said, the very fact, that this body sits independent of the 
general government, is conclusive upon this subject. If the powers of the 
geneial government, said Mr. W. were illimitable, then she could control 
the organization and sittingsof the Legislatures of the states, their courts 
of justice, and do and perforin every other act regulating the internal poli¬ 
ty ot the states. There can no man be found sir, in these United States, 
who would pretend these powers could be exercised by the general gov¬ 
ernment. It is said also, the general government has no powers, except 
those given in tue constitution. Ibis is a truism also, which no one will 
ilenj foi if all the states should agree to abolish the constitution, there 
vvould be an end to the general government. But that certain powers, al¬ 
though limited, are given to the general government, is equally a truism, 
which no one will deny—tor how could a government exist without pow¬ 
ers? As no government could exist without certain powers, we may ask 
what necessary powers must be granted to form a government ? The an¬ 
swer is plain—the power to legislate, to adjudicate and to execute. These 
powers may be vested in one body, or they may be divided out—but these 
powers are absolutely necessary to every government—yet they may be 
limited as by the constitution of the United States, the power to le«is- 
ate, is vested in a Congress, composed of a senate and house of represen¬ 
tatives, authorized to legislate only on particular subjects enumerated in 
the constitution—so the power to adjudicate, or the judicial power, is vest¬ 
ed in a supreme courtbut this judicial power is restricted to particular 
matters and things enumerated in the constitution, and of course becomes 
a limited jurisdiction—and the power to execute is vested in the President 
oi the United States, also restricted and limited by the constitution. In 
aiese three bodys, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President 
are vested all the powers appertaining and belonging to the general govern- 
ment-and m fact make up the government. It is°true, there are 1 great 
variety of other officers exercising power, but they are all emenations clone 
oi tne other m the general powers above mentioned. Congress beino- one 
oianch of the general government, has certain powers, so has the supreme 

court, and so has the President. These powers are given in, and by the 
constitution, which is thn nrf nflUo cfn+‘o _ 8 ’• V lUL 


/, , 7 ^ power Deing clearly given ha* anv 

«t the states now the power to lay and collect taxes, duties? imposts' and 
excises, m the sense m vvlueh Congress has the power ? Con"re«s has the 
power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, this poweHiein* cleal- 
*•’ * * •‘■is any one ol the states now the power t 0 regulate commerce 


with foreign nations? Let it be remembered that each state is a suve 
reignty in itself; and that one of the powers incident to sovereignty, is to 
make treaties; by which of course commerce may be regulated. Yet no 
one will pretend, that a state has a right to make a treaty with any foreign 
power upon the subject of commerce—and why? the answer is because 
that power has been given away by the states to Congress: viz—the states 
by compact have agreed to transfer and vest this part of their sovereignty 
in that body called Congress. If then one of the states should undertake 
to regulate foreign commerce, would not such state be violating that part 
of the compact or constitution by which this power was given to Congress ? 
This doctrine said Mr. VV. will hold good with regard to every power 
granted to each branch of the general government. If the powers which 
have been granted to the federal court, should be exercised by any one 
of the states, would not the exercise of such power by a state, be a violas 
lion of that part of the compact or constitution by which such power was 
given ? The constitution says “ the judicial power shall extend to all ca¬ 
ses of law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws ot the United 
States,” &c. Suppose a state in her sovereign power, should exercise ju¬ 
risdiction ot a case arising in law or equity under the constitution and 
laws of the United States, would not that state violate that part ot the 
compactor constitution giving this power to the sepreme court as one ot 
the co-ordinate branches of the general government ? Suppose any one 
state should undertake and exercise the power given in the constitution to 
the President of the United States, would not such act be a violation ot 
that part of the constitution giving this power to the President. Ihese 
cases, said Mr. W. are plain and palpable; and all we have now to do, is to 
apply them to the case before us, and it the analogy will bear us out, it will 
follow, that for this state to nullify the present tariff laws, such act will be 
a violation of the constitution of theU. States. Let us, Mr. Chairman, take 
a case arisin nr under the present tariff laws. A merchant impoi ts a 
8100,000 worth of goods—he is required to pay a duty ot 40 per cent— 
under what law is this duty demanded ? Under a law ot the United States. 
He refuses payment—the collector of customs seizes Ins goods. Under 
what law does the seizure take place? The law ot the United States. 
The merchant complains of this law—what are his complaints ^ ^ hat this 

law is a violation of the constitution of the United States. Here then the 
whole case arises under the laws and constitution of the United States. 
The words of the constitution are, “ the judicial power shall extend to all 
cases of law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws ot the 
United States,” &c. Will any man ot common sense say the fedeial court 
has not full and ample jurisdiction over the case-and this jurisdiction 
under the express letter of the constitution, and which is the act ot the 
states ? If then the federal court has jurisdiction, and this by the states 
cedirm that portion of their sovereign judicial power to this branch ot the 
general government, how can a state undertake to do an act which will 
take from the federal court the legitimate power granted, without viola- 
fin" that part of the constitution granting the power? Is it an answer 
to this argument to tell us, that the federal court is the cieature c.1 
Con-ressind will decide against us ? To say that the federal court is 
thef eature of Congress is nonsense. The federa court is a co-ordinate 
branch of the general government, and is independant of Congress. T he 


1 .)b i 

L • J 

judges are a* independent as they should be, and are as much protected as 
they should be—they are not even appointed by Congress. They are ap¬ 
pointed like all other officers of the general government except the presi¬ 
dent. Their powers are derived from the constitution. How it is, that 
they can be called the creatures of Congress, Mr. W. said, was what he 
could not understand. It is true, that upon a charge exhibited against 
them, the house of representatives votes the impeachment, and the senate 
forming itself into a court, tries the case. But if this makes them a mere 
creature of Congress, it would also subject the President to the same im¬ 
putation ; for upon charges prefered against him he is to pass the same tri¬ 
bunal. But sir, suppose all this to be true, it would not aid our opponents, 
lor the question is one of constitutional power and not of mere virtue or 
integrity. Suppose it was known how the judges of our own state would 
decide, from what they had previously decided. Would this fact effect or 
take from them their judicial powers? And would it also transfer their 
powers given by the constitution, to another tribunal not known to the 
laws ana constitution of the country ? 

But sir, said Mr. W. there are still other objections to this doctrine of 
nullification. The power is given to Congress “ to lay and collect duties .” 
It is said this is only for the purpose of revenue, and that when Congress 
undertakes to lay and collect duties for any other purpose than necessary 
revenue, it is a violation of the constitution. To this, Mr. W\ said, he gave 
nis most cordial assent. But still, so far as the tarifflaws requires a col¬ 
lection of duties for revenue, they are constitutional to that extent, for 
that power is expressly given under the constitution, and so far as the act 
requires a collection of duties for other purposes it is void. But to ^et 
relief by nullification, and not violate the constitution on our part, it is sure¬ 
ly necessaiy that wo should draw the line between necessary revenue and 
protection, or any other object which induced the law than revenue—for 
Congress herself only violates the constitution by crossing this line. Sure¬ 
ly then if we cross this line, from protection down through necessaru duty 
we in turn violate the constitution on our part; for the power is oj V en to 
Congress so far as revenue requires duties. Now by the act of nullifica¬ 
tion you put an end to all duties, as well that which is necessaru for revenue 

f!' lth t Con f'v, SS w ende , d fora "y °. ther P u >'P°se. Tims you cannot 
nullify tins act said Mr. W. without violating or restrainin' 1, the exercise of 

powers granted under the constitution; that of laying and collectin' 1, duties 

tor revenue. It then a state by an act, takes from Congress a legitimate 

power does that state not violate so much of the constitution as dves that 

power ? Again sir: If one state has the right and the power to decide 

that an act of Congress is unconstitutional, and to absolve the neonle from 

obedience, has not each ol the other states the same power? Could they 

not in turn nullify any and every act of Congress ? And thus the legitf- 

mate powers of Congress would be taken away by the states, and the uni- 

on become a mere ■■ rope of sand.” Sir, this would make the powers of 

til c general government to depend entirely upon the will of the Itates and 

not upon the constitution ; and thus this fair fabric, secured by the blood 

oi our fathers, would be torn to atoms, and the states return bade to their 

die S nm!e 1ltuat,l0n—sub J®. ct to bc recolomzed one by one, and made to bow to 

C-iv?f ho r 'i° nu na »i° n ’r.Y ’? se stlen S tb might surpass any single state 
tan there be any man Mr. Chairman, who loves his country, and who does 


uui tremble ior her fate, when he sees and hears such doctrines propogat 
ed and maintained in our public counsels. But sir, it is necessary here to 
answer some arguments used by the honorable gentlemen from Richland, 
(Mr. Preston.) Sir, they can be fairly met, and fully answered. That 
honorable gentlemen has said, suppose that South Carolina should grant 
letters of mark and reprisal, would not Congress nullify that act, by de¬ 
claring all persons sailing under such powers guilty of piracy P Sir, we 
answer distinctly—No! Congress would do no such thing—it is entirely 
gratuitous in the gentleman to suppose that Congress would do so. The 
gentleman sir should remember, that the powers of Congress are only 
legislative, anil not judicial. Congress therefore, could not decide that 
the act of any state was unconstitutional; this requires judicial powers, 
which Congress nor no other legislative body possess. Upon such a case 
the federal court would be the tribunal to decide; and thus the legislative 
and judicial powers would be kept separate and distinct, which is accord¬ 
ing to the principle and formation of our government. P>ut sir, another 
argument has been used by the same gentleman, and from his apparant tri¬ 
umphant manner, one would suppose he thought unanswerable. It is that 
the federal court have tiie power to “ nullify, 5 ’ as the gentleman is pleased 
to call it, an act of Congress, and that neither bloodshed nor carnage has 
followed such act of nullification”—and then tine gentleman asks, where 
are the powers of the federal court by which that tribunal can suspend the 
act of Congress, clog the wheels of a government; and yet a state in her 
sovereign might and power cannot do so ? Sir, the cases are not parrallel, 
neither in point of fact, nor of consequence. First, by the constitution of 
the United States, the federal court has the right to adjudicate upon ques¬ 
tions arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. This 
wower is expressly given, and this express power carries with it the neces¬ 
sity of deciding whether an act of Congress passed under the constitution, 
is in conformity with the provision of the constitution or not. They must 
necessarily decide what the constitution is, and then what the statute is. 
To deny thispiwver to the court, would be to take all judicial power from 
it—and as the constitution is superior to all law, any act passed by any 
Legislature, Congress or any other power, must give way through the judg¬ 
ment of this court to the constitution. To consider the supreme court as 
the creature of Congress, is what has given rise to all the objections to this 
tribunal. Sir, this is an error. The supreme court as before said, forms a, 
Separate branch of the general government—exercising one of the necessa 



what avails the power to legislate without the aid of legal process? Alaw 
not enforced would be the same as no law—a mere dead letter. The su¬ 
preme court then should be considered as the judicial tribunal of the na¬ 
tion—created and fixed upon by the nation for national purposes, and em¬ 
powered by the nation to decide questions in which the nation are con¬ 
cerned—and this effect, makes the great difference between the federal 
court deciding an act of Congress to be void as against the constitution, 
and a state’s making the same decision. The nation has fixed upon the 
federal court for this purpose, and when the decision is made, the nation 
is effected bv it—for the act cannot be enforced any where, it is void eve- 


I * j 


'<y 


where, in every state—not so with an act of nullification by a state- 
there, only the people of that state are effected. If South Carolina nulli¬ 
fy the tariff'laws, the people of South Carolina are alone released from 
paying the duty—the other states would be still bound to pay. To say 
otherwise, would be, to make South Carolina a judicial tribunal for the oth¬ 
er states; her veto would fix their fate; they would either stand or fall at 
her will and pleasure. It must be easy to see, that the other states would 
not consent to a union upon such terms. But if one state has this power, 
which state is it ? Is it South Carolina in preference to all others ? Is it 
the state which first acts? How are these positions to be established? 
Sir, said Mr. W. it will surely put the ingenuity of gentlemen to the rack to 
tell us ? Again sir: If a state can nullify an act of Congress, it follows that 
the same state may nullify the judgment of the supreme court, or an act 
of the President—for let it be remembered, that Congress is not the gene¬ 
ral government, nor is the supreme court, nor is the president when taken 
separately—but when collectively. If then the act of one branch of the 
government may be nullified, so may another. Thus an act passed by 
Congress may be nullified, a decision made by the supreme court may be 
nullified,and an act done by the president maybe nullified. Gentlemen 
must see to what enormous consequences such a doctrine would lead. 
The decision of the court by which A is made to respond to B in damages 
are rendered void, treaties made and ratified by which nations agree to act 
are destroyed, laws passed for the government and safety of the nation are 
made inoperative, and all this by the act of a single state. Sir, said Mr. 
W. would it not be mockery to talk of a government authorized to act, 
and yet liable to be so easily defeated at the will and pleasure of another 
power ? Again sir: Our union is composed of twenty-four states besides 
territories. If any one state possess ajl this power, what becomes of the 
liberty of the other states ? Must they submit to this act of nullification 
by one state ? If they do not choose to submit, what are their rights and 
remedy? Are they to resist the state thus nullifying? If so, how? 
iVith force? Sir, it cannot be by judicial intervention, because so soon 
as the judicial decision is made, it may be nullified. Can it be by treaty 
with the nullifying state ? This cannot be done, for by the constitution 
the states cannot enter into treaties. This sir, leaves the anti-nullifying 
states no other remedy but resistance by force, or submission—the conse¬ 
quence ol resistance by torce is horrible destruction—the consequence of 
submission is to make one state, the sovereign of the whole, or permit her 
to remain a member of the union, receiving all the benefits of protection 
from the union, and bearing none of its burthens ; in fact she shakes off all 
allegiance, and yet claims and receives protection. But sir, as allegiance 
is only due where protection is given, so protection is onlv given where 
allegiance is paid. 

It has been said before sir, that laws passed, and remaining unexecuted, 
are the same as if not passed at all—they are like idle threats. Suppose 
sir, the states maintain and settle their right to nullify the acts of any, and 
every part, of the various acts of each, and every branch of the general 
government. In virtue of the union a treaty is made, but one or more of 
the states nullify that treaty, and so of every treaty made. Congress pass 
laws, those laws are nullified—the supreme court makes decisions, and 
those decisions are nullified. Thus all the acts of the general government 




t. 1»9 ] 

ute nu Hi tied rendered inoperative. Does not the same consequence foi- 
(ovv, as it the treaties had not been made, the laws not passed, and the 
judgment of the court not pronounced ? And if we have no treaties, no 
jaws, and no adjudications or judgments, what becomes of the union ? 
I bus sir, said Mr. . it seems clear, that the doctrine of nullification car- 
ned into operation,^ at once a dissolution of the union. 

. n ? ar g llll ient for gentlemen to tells us, the general government 

is one oi limited powers, and that Congress being one of the branches of 
tiie go\ eminent has transcended the powers given, and violates by its acts 
our constitutional liberty. All this may be true, but does it follow from 
thence, that the act 01 nullification by a state is a safe, constitutional and 
peaceable remedy? Mr. W. said,if he should be asked, what was our 
remedy ? How are we to avoid the dangerous attack upon our liberties 
Irom a consolidated government, to which we are rapidly approaching ? 
The answer is, separation—this is our only self-remedy, ‘if relief comes 
iiom another quarter it is well—but otherwise, if we remedy ourselves, it 
must be by revolution—and sir, here you only have to count the cost. 
And sir, whenever that day comes, Mr. *W. said, he would go for his state, 
light or wrong with her he said, he would be willing to live or die—he 
said so far as he, as one of the citizens of the state was concerned, lie 
would not consent to live under a government of unlimited powers. lie 
should feel himself a slave, for what is liberty when it is only enjoyed bv 
permission ? As well might our slaves, said Mr. W. boast of liberty when 
indulgences are granted by their masters. 

But sir, there are still other objections to the call of a convention at 
this time not only because the people as before said, are too much divid¬ 
ed on the question, but also, because there are other matters and things 
besides that of the tariff, against which the people should complain, and 
which have not yet been fully considered and discussed among them—and 
Which sir, will no doubt produce other and still greater divisions, not only 
on principle, but from other causes equally powerful: 

1 st. The power of Congress to appropriate money for the purposes of in¬ 
ternal improvement. 

2 d. The power now' claimed of appropriating money for the transpor¬ 
tation of free persons of color beyond the limits of the United States. 

3d. The power to establish a national bank. 

These are questions Mr. Chairman of equal vitality to the southern 
states with that of the tariff— especially the two last/ Sir, if Congress 
has the power to appropriate money for the removal office persons of 
color; it follows, that money may be appropriated for the purchase of 
slaves, and then the power to manumit will also follow. If Congress has 
the power to purchase our slaves and then to manumit, this may be done, 
even without transporting—If Congress has the power to transport, the 
power to import follows—thus sir, a power is claimed, an impolitic exer¬ 
cise of which must forever blast the fairest prospects of our beloved coun¬ 
try, deluge us in blood, and finally, strike us from among the nations of 
the earth. Mr. W. said this was only a hint of his own feelings upon 
this subject, having no information from his constituents he could not say 
what were their view's. 

Upon the subject of the bank, there must be necessarily great difference 
of opinion—even on principle—many contending for the necessary now- 


H)0 


€i- troin national advantages; others from pecuniary motives, being stock¬ 
holders, amt finding it profitable, the eyes of their understanding becomes 
darkened, and hearing of no complaints of peculiar oppression, they cling 
to it with an ardent zeal—but others who are contented with ordinary- 
national advantages, and willing to be simple republications, jealous of 
liberty and of power, view this institution as a monied monopoly—know¬ 
ing its power to crush all the banks of the states at pleasure, object dis¬ 
tinctly to the establishment of any power capable of exercising such un¬ 
bounded influence, unless the grant in the constitution is clear and une¬ 
quivocal. Let this institution but once determine to exert her powers, 
and whatman, community or state can successfully resist her—men form 
communities and states—they Control and govern; and if under the in¬ 
fluence of any power, of course that power dictates; and her will and 
pleasure guides and directs. Now sir, when a convention is called it 
should be, if it has power for the redress of all and every grievance; to 
settle every difference. To call a convention to settle only one matter 
of difference, when there exists four or five others, is only doing things 
by halves; which is neither prudent nor safe: and as these matters have 
not as yet been discussed before the people, no public expression of their 
opinions can be known ; and to act now would be acting unadvisedly.— 
Mr. W. said he was one of those who thought in matters of this kind, the 
voice of the people should be heard, and then to govern. Again sir, it is 
important that peace and tranquility should be restored P this never can 
be, while these disputed matters remain unsettled; and if this ferment is 
to be gotten up on four or five different occasions, and to be kept up as 
long as the fire of party and ill-will can, at each such successive attempt 
at relief; Mr. W. said, he for one should loose all hope of ever seeing 
his country at peace—for sir, if rage and fury must come upon us, it can 
be no worse to divide on four than on one point; and until all these 
matters of difference could be submitted for consideration he was 
unwilling to act at all. Mr. W. said he would now take a general view 
of the subject submitted to the committee and close his remarks, ihe 
avowed object of calling a convention being to obtain their decision of the 
unconstitutionality of an act of Congress, and then for the Legislature to 
nullify, is not only liable to the objections in particular before mentioned, 
but leaves us in this dilemma. The act of nullification cannotbe enforced 
by judicial process. How then will if be enforced P If not enforced, no 
good can result from it—It surely then can only be enforced, if at all, by 
the physical power of the state. 

The collector of customs in acting will be governed by the act of Con¬ 
gress—upon refusal by the importing merchant to pay the duty, his goods 
will be seized—this act as has been shewn will be sustained by the courts; 
as well the judges of our own state as of the federal court. This decision 
must either be submitted to or resisted. If submitted to, then all is gone; 
if resisted, how? only by the physical power of the state. Thus the first 
assault must be made by the state, and if we resort to force, is there any 
one who will say, that the force offered by the state, will not be resisted 
by the general government? Is it not manifest therefore, that the course 
proposed must either terminate in submission, or actual hostility ? And 
thus a system onerous and oppressive is either firmly fixed upon us by 
our submission, or wo are rashly driven to forceablc resistance * and are 


• , r i#i ] 

thus found lighting our own countrymen, anil drenching our happy anil 
favored land with the blood of her own citizens. But, Mr. Chairman, we 
are told by the honorable speaker, that no danger need be apprehended 
—that he apprehends none*—that lie fears none, and says, if he errs, he 
errs by the sides of Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Hamilton and M‘I)uffie, and his 
honorable friend from Richland, Mr. Preston; and triumphantly asks, 
who would fear to act in concert with such patriots? Sir, the honorable 
gentleman said Mr. W. may boast of his associates—upon this point he 
gains nothing—for although the honorable gentleman is pleased to name 
honorable and distinguished individuals, yet is the boast not triumphant, 
for no confidence can be placed in politicians who are constantly upon 
the move,—tossed and driven by every wind of doctrine,—but, said Mr. 

AV., we can boast a triumphant boast—we can boast of Smith, Huger, 
Richardson, Drayton and many others; who, although they may differ on 
other points, yet upon this agree;—men who at all times, and under 
all circumstances have continued firmly and consistently adhering to the 
opinions and sentiments long ago expressed. And upon the main 
question now before this committee, of how far a state has the power to 
resist the general government; the honorable speaker himself might be 
considered as among our ranks ; for in the good old year of 1825, 
when all was calm and still, and which were among the better days of 
that gentleman, in an oration delivered by him to the Clariosophic Society 
incorporate, in speaking at page 22 of the dangers of dismemberment of 
the union he says “The danger of dismemberment is still further obvia¬ 
ted by that very extension of our empire which has been supposed to car¬ 
ry in its bosom the seeds of ruin. If the increase of our territory engen¬ 
ders sectional jealousies, it also renders them entirely harmless. In a 
small confederacy consisting of a few states only the anger or disaffection 
of a single state might he productive of serious injury to the whole. But 
in a confederacy as extended as ours, the attempts of individuals, or even 
the discontent and irritation of one or more states would pass unheeded as 
Vie idle wind. Heated to desperation by the cavils of demagogues or go¬ 
verned by unreasonable views of their own dignity and interest, they 
might possibly be seduced for a moment from their loyaly to the union, 
but the pernicious example would extend no farther. All the other mem¬ 
bers of the union having no sympathy or participation in their misguided 
views, would either frown them into propriety or ridicule them into shame. 

If in the course of our history we have occasionally been mortified by 
observing a momentary disposition in some of our states, to array them¬ 
selves against the government, we have also been consoled by the universal 
opposition to their conduct, which has always been manifested by all the 
other states, and by the certainty and facility with which they have been 
induced to retrace their steps and relinquish their pretentions. Indeed 
the field of operation is entirely too large to admit the smallest hope of 
successful combination—the errors or malversations of one or ot a few, 
will be surely resisted and corrected by the impartial judgment and patri¬ 
otism of the others. There may be occasional deviations and eccentrici¬ 
ties; but as in the planetary system they will not derange the order and 
harmony of the whole; and thus in that very multiplicity ot the states, 
and consequent diversity of local interest and feeling which have been so 
fearful!v apprehended to be fraught with evil; we discern abundant ane « 

m x 


convincing proof, that' no state or states will ever be permitted to obtain 
an ascendency or pursue a conduct involving in hazard the general securi¬ 
ty of the nation.” 

Here Mr. Chairman, we have the deliberate opinions of the honorable 
speaker expressed upon the rights and powers of the state for self relief in 
1825. And letitbe remembered there was no rage of party then, noimme- 
diate offers of promotion,nor any thing like that combination now existing to 
build up, and break down those in opposition to us—but while in his closet, 
abstracted from the world, preparing an address forthe youth of ourcollege; 
answering a call highly honorable to the gentleman, and no doubt gratifying 
to his feelings, with full time for deliberation all his powers would surely be 
brought into action. Opinions thus made up, and thus expressed, if enti¬ 
tled to any respect, must be considered as the serious and honest convic¬ 
tion of the author.*—And if gentlemen express and publish their opinions 
to the world they must not take it amiss when we shew them their devia¬ 
tions and tergiversations—for being called upon to follow them, we fear 
least so soon as we drop into their new wake, they suddenly turn about, 
and retreating to their old notions, leave us to get out of our new difficul¬ 
ties the best way we can. Sir, there are many other gentlemen in this 
state, from the publications of their pamphlets and orations, are in like 
difficulties with the honorable speaker, and if they choose to repent and 
confess, let them do so publicly, and then devote to the fire the unhallow¬ 
ed productions, only doing as the judge of all the earth did, when he de¬ 
stroyed the idolatrous cities of Sodom and Gomorah. If there should be 
any righteous, destroy them not with the wicked—and to this course we 
would advise the honorable speaker. Sir, arguments have been used by 
gentlemen insisting on the right of the state to judge in all cases of abuse 
by Congress—to this Mr. W. said he could not assent. Many questions of 
the constitutional or unconstitutional acts of Congress must necessarily 
be submitted to the federal court—but it Congress should pass a law affect¬ 
ing the sovereignty of a state, the case would be altered. Mr. W. said 
no one had ever heard him say in sucli case, the federal court, had iuris- 
diction—for no such power was given to the federal court. But what 
kind oi laws must Congress pass to effect the sovereignty of a state ? This 
matter seems to be in the mouth of every one, and while all are express¬ 
ing their opinions Mr. W. said he would take the liberty of expressing hi* 
He said he conceived that no law passed by Congress could effect the 
sovereignty ol a state, except the act be not only unauthorized by the con¬ 
stitution, but also at the same time, takes from the stale its sovereign 
power. lake an instance, Congress has power to declare war. How 
could a declaration of war under any circumstances effect the sovereign 
power of a state ? No state has the right to declare war, this portion*" 
sovereignty has been given by each state to Congress. Congress for this 
purpose may be said to be the agent of each stated and although the power 
may be imprudently exercised, yet its being a constitutional rio-lit, the 
exercise of it can never be said to effect the sovereignty of the state" The 
truth is, the states upon this subject have no sovereign power-theV have 
yielded it up to Congress and to say that sovereignty could be effected 
wiime none existed would be nonsense. Apply this doctrine to the c^s<* 

US * ? nd ltwiU be , eas J t0 that Congress by passino- the present 
-’Thift laws have not touched the sovereign pow er of the states 


i i«a 1 

Congress has power “ to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and ex¬ 
cises” it' the words had been added tor the purposes ol necessary revenue 
and none other, we should, said Mr. W. have had expressed in words 
what is certainly the plain and common sense meaning of the constitution* 
It is certainly clear, that no state has the power to lav and collect taxes, 
duties, imposts and excises, in the sense that Congress has since the grant 
of this power—By this grant of power then, each state has yielded up to 
Congress this portion of its sovereign power, and although Congress may 
not only make an imprudent collection, but may also violate the constitu¬ 
tion in exceeding the powers given under the constitution, yet as the 
state has no sovereign power upon this subject, of course there can be no 
affecting this power. If it should be said, that the powers of Congress to 
]ay and collect duties only for a particular purpose, gives only a particu¬ 
lar power, and therefore the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, &c. ior 
any other purpose not being granted is reserved to the states, the answer 
is, “unless prohibited by the constitution to the states.” If then the 
power is prohibited by the constitution to the states, it is not reserved 
either to the states or to the people. The words of this part of the consti¬ 
tution are, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the con¬ 
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respec¬ 
tively, or to the people.” Now it is true, that the power to lay and collect 
duties &c. is not delegated to the Congress of the United States, for any 
other purpose, but simply for revenue. But is this power prohibited by 
the constitution from the states? the constitution says “no state shall 
without the consent of Congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or 
exports except what may be absolutely necessary for the execution oj its 
inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by 
any state on imports or exports, shall be tor the use of the treasury of the 
United States ; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and con¬ 
trol of Congress.” By this section said Mr. W. it is clear, that the exercise 
of a power is prohibited by the constitution to the states, and whethei 
Congress has and exercises the power or not, does not effect the sovereign¬ 
ty ofthe states. The only sovereignty left the states upon this subject, is 
the right to lay and collect duties or imposts to such an extent or amount 
as may be absolutely necessary to enable a state to execute its inspection 
laws, and even the exercise of this power is subject to the icvision and 
control of Congress. Mr. W. said it followed, that Congress could only 
effect the sovereignty of the states upon this subject, by passing a law 
takin 0, from the states the power to lay and collect such duties as weie 
absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws ; this he said had 
not been done—and therefore, the sovereignty of the states were not 
effected by the tariff laws, but being a mere question of constitutional 
law, between the importing merchant and the geneial government, ansing 
under the constitution and laws of the United States, the fedeial court 
had full and ample j urisdiction over the matter. 

Mr. W. said he would now only make one suggestion to the committee 
and which, if it should succeed would give ample relief. This was by an 
amendment to the constitution ol the United States I hat no bill foi 
revenue, or appropriation of money in times of peace , should have the 
force of a law, until agreed toby two thirds of both houses of Congress— 
and that all laws now of force should stand repealed, until agreed to by 


t 184 | - 

two thirds of doth houses, &c. If relief could be obtained by amending 
the constitution ; it would not require the call of a convention, for the 
proposal to amend could only constitutionally be made by the Legisla¬ 
tures or bv Congress as directed iri the constitution. 

Now sir. if this or a similar proposition was made, and rejected by a 
majority ol the states, and Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama 
would go with us; 1 for one said Mr. W. would not long hesitate between 
aseperation and submitting to a government of unlimited powers. 


B. F. DUNKIN’S SPEECH. 

Mr. Dunkin' said, no one could fail to have observed the dissatisfaction, 
which had, for some years, pervaded the south, in relation to the proceed¬ 
ings of the general government. It might promote the object of the com¬ 
mittee, to advert for a moment, to the causes of those discontents. Our 
forefathers wisely regarded all government as an evil; as an encroachment 
on the natural liberty of man. For many years they submitted to the de¬ 
fects of the articles of confederation, rather than consent to the establish¬ 
ment of a stronger authority. Perhaps their posterity may yet regret the 
hour when their jealousy slumbered ; when, instead of gradually supplying 
the deficiencies of that plain, but secure frame, they attempted to establish 
a more magnificent, but less simple, and, it may be, a less durable, svstem 
of government. 

The payment of the national debt, and the regulation of our intercourse 
with foreign nations, were the principal causes of the adoption of the con¬ 
stitution. From the terms of that instrument, as well as from cotempora- 
neous discussions, it was manifestly the intention of the convention, jeal¬ 
ously to exclude the general government from any interference with the 
internal regulations of the states, or to invest it with any other powers 
than such as were palpably necessary to the great objects of its creation. 
Fully aware of the view's of our ancestors, and impressed with the conviction 
tion of the salutary apprehensions, which they entertained as to encroach¬ 
ing tendency of all government, those who first administered the affairs 
of the union, generally restricted their operations within the peculiar and 
appropriate sphere of national legislation. On these principles were con¬ 
ducted the adminstrations of Gen. Washington, the elder Mr. Adams, and 
emphatically that of Mr. Jefferson, than whom no man ever better under¬ 
stood the true theory of the federal compact. The obnoxious acts of 1798 
were perhaps exceptions to this cautious exercise of power. The autho¬ 
rities which attempted to enforce them, w-ere removed from their places by 
an indignant people, and the reformation of 1800 was a signal triumph of 
the principles of the constitution, over those who had forgotten the repub¬ 
lican simplicity of its character, and the limited extent of its action. Our 
external relations afforded abundant employment to the wise and success¬ 
ful administration of Mr. Madison. During the period we have traced, 
all internal legislation was left to the statesTespectively. Individual cn- 
terprize was neither prematurely fostered by governmental aid, nor tram¬ 
melled by exactions and prohibitions, except so far as its advancement or 



[ ll>5 ] 

decline were incidentall // affected in the discharge oi the other and appro¬ 
priate duties prescribed by the constitution. It the unexampled prosperi¬ 
ty of the country suffered occasional interruption, the attachment to the 
union was uniform and devoted. Indeed it was only known from the 
high character it had secured for the republic abroad, and was only 
felt in the blessings which it dispensed at home. 

The successful termination of hostilities with Great Britain in 1815, se¬ 
cured our country for a long time from foreign aggression, and confirmed 
the government in the consciousness of their own strength. I he period 
of rejoicing and of triumph is not always the most favorable for prudent 
legislation. The era ot good feelings is sometimes that in which the spii it 
ofliberty slumbers, and encroachments of power are unperceived. For the 
last fourteen years the character of the government, or rather the mode of 
its administration, had undergone a gradual, but regular, and very appa¬ 
rent change. Unconfined in its operations to the lew and legitimate pur¬ 
poses of its establishment, the general government threatened to monopo¬ 
lize the whole theatre of internal as well as external legislation, ihe 
several revisions of the tariff, together with the indiscriminate and profuse 
expenditure of the public treasure on schemes of internal improvement, 
while they extended the powers of Congress to objects never contemplat¬ 
ed by the constitution, had augmented the patronage oi the government 
far beyond the worst apprehensions of its earliest and most zealous oppo¬ 
nents—monopolists do not risk their capital until success is guaranteed to 
their enterprize by the protection ot law; and crowds of hungry ex¬ 
pectants annually beset the doors ot Congress, in order to obtain the co¬ 
operation of government in the promotion ot their visionary projects. 1 he 
encouragement of particular interests to the neglect or disparagement oi 
others equally entitled to favor, naturally creates discontent. Ihe ine¬ 
quality of a tax is always its most oppressive character. I he burthens oi 
<>-overnment, impartially imposed, are cheerfully borne. The complaint 
too, is not that we are condemned to severe labor and staightened econorin, 
while our neighbor is clothed in purple and fine linen, and faies sumptu¬ 
ously every day. All this, and worse, may be in the natural dispensations 
of Providence—but murmurs cannot be suppressed when a territory, on 
which Heaven has showered its blessings, and where the industry ot man 
is unremitted, is rendered tributary by partial legislation, to less favored 
regions, and palsied in its energies by a system of restrictions “a like un¬ 
warranted by the constitution, and inconsistent with the true policy o» the 
country.” However pure may have been the intentions ot t.ie govern¬ 
ment, the regulation of industry in a region so wide in extent and so divei - 
sified in its interests as these United States, could not be undertaken 
without the certainty of giving rise to deep and interminable dissatisfac¬ 
tion. The wisdom of our forefathers would not readily have entrusted to 
Congress a power so liable to abuse, and so fruitful in causes of jealousy 
and discontent. They well knew that harmony could only be secured by 
forbearance; that the popularity of the general government, and the pre¬ 
servation of the union, depended principally on leaving to the states 
the exercise of all the rights which were not mdispensibly necessa¬ 
ry in the discharge of the duties confided to the federal administra¬ 
tion. But the usurpations of Congress now proceed with rapid strides: 
the majority first determine that a measure of policy is expedient, and then 


I I«« j 

• 

the astuteness ui professional ingenuity tortures some clause oi the consti¬ 
tution in order to furnish an apology for the exercise of the power. Not 
content with taxing the many for the benefit of the few, they have recent¬ 
ly exhibited dispositions still more ominous to the posterity, or even the 
political existence of a large portion of the confederacy. The bill, intro¬ 
duced by Mr. Mercer, is one of the signs of the times. An appropriation 
oi money for the purposes contemplated by that bill, would evince a reck¬ 
lessness on tiie part of Congress as well in the assumption, as in the exer¬ 
cise of power, a disregard of the feelings and interests of the south, as 
well as ot the principles of the constitution, which would necessarily jeop¬ 
ardize the existence of the union. 

These are some ot the causes of the wide spread dissatisfaction, which 
prevails in the southern states. This is the unwise course of legislation, 
which, if it has not alienated the affections of the south from that union, at 
once the object ot their pride and devotion, has gradually cooled the ardor 
ol their attachment. For three years at least our own state has been agi¬ 
tated from the seaboard to the mountains. Instead of the ordinary pur¬ 
poses of legislation, the representatives of the people assemble in these 
hails to speak the complaints of their constituents. Convulsed as our 
community has been, the ties of connexion and friendship all sundered, 
there is yet no difference of opinion—there is, on the contrary, an almost 
unbroken unanimity on the subject of our wrongs. We have all been in¬ 
structed to adopt every means, not inconsistent with the constitution, to 
check a career, which threatens to destroy not only us, but the govern¬ 
ment. Our purpose is to save the union, to learn from an examination of 
tiie true nature ol the federal compact, whether no effectual obstacle can be 
interposed to the rapid march of a numerical majority, id levelling the 
barriers of the constitution, absorbing and consolidating all the powers of 
the states, and thus precipitating a dissolution of the confederacy. 

But the committee have been told that the tariff laws are not unconsti¬ 
tutional ; or rather that they are warranted by the letter of the instrument 
—that the supreme court is tiie proper tribunal to determine the character 
of those laws, and that they would necessarily decide in favor of their con¬ 
stitutionality, and that the states have no remedy but revolution; in the 
language oi one ot the gentlemen, “the inalienable right to alter or abolish, 
old, and constitute new governments. 59 

So tar as reiterated resolutions, adopted on various occasions, with un¬ 
exampled unanimity, may be regarded as indicating the real sentiments 
ot a deliberative assembly, the unconstitutionality of what is misternied 
the American system, is ‘the settled doctrine of the Legislature of South 
Carolina—it has never been asserted that Congress could not, constitu¬ 
tionally, afford protection to manufactures. She may do so, and must ne¬ 
cessarily do so, in executing other powers specifically conferred. In rais¬ 
ing revenue tor the ord inary exigencies of government, domestic manufac¬ 
tures will be, and are, iucidentauy protected. The fact that manufactures 
are protected by a bona fide revenue law, is no objection to such law ; but 
it is objectionable that under color ot passing a revenue law (clearly war¬ 
ranted by the constitution,) Congress enacts a law exclusively to protect 
manufacturers, fa power not warranted by the constitution.) it is urged 
by one ol the gentlemen, that Congress have the power to regulate com¬ 
merce ; arid that he wotdd presume our tariff’ was intended as a" measure of 


t 167 J 

retaliation to the coi n laws of Great Britain. But the same answer pre¬ 
sents itself to this suggestion. It has never been seriously pretended, in 
or out of Congress, that the British corn laws were the origin of our tariff 
ot protection. Suppose her ports were thrown open to-morrow to all our 
productions, is it believed or surmised that our tariff would be reduced to 
a measure of revenue ? The avowed, unquestionable, object of the tariff 
is to exclude foreign commodities in order to coerce the people to pur¬ 
chase domestic manufacturers. It is therefore “ a perversion of certain 
specified grants of power to purposes never contemplated by the authors 
of the constitution, or the states when they adopted it.” The complaint 
has always been that it is a fraud upon the constitution. That the infrac¬ 
tion is not palpable, only renders the blow more insidious, and the wound 
more dangerous. No act of Congress will ever be palpably unconstitution¬ 
al, if by that it be meant that no process of reasoning is necessary to dem¬ 
onstrate its true character. The tariff of protection is one of the “ cases in 
ivhich all the forms of the constitution fail to reach the real character of 
the law f' but which is not therefore the less a violation of the constitution, 
an usurpation of power ; and, as will be shewn, may be so declared by any 
of the original parties to the compact. 

But the committee had been told, that the practice of the government 
from its infancy, had authorized the exercise of this power; and extracts 
had been read from the messages of those, who had tilled the executive 
chair. But it will be soon perceived that this encroachment derives in 
truth, as little sanction from the practice of the government as from the 
terms of the constitution. Prior to 1816, revenue laws were always pass¬ 
ed for the purpose ol revenue. In the adjustment of duties for this pri¬ 
mary object, domestic manufactures were incidentally encouraged. This 
discrimination was recommended to Congress, and by them honestly ex¬ 
ercised. In the early period of our government, the payment of the na¬ 
tional debt and other exigencies, required a duty of five per cent, on coarse 
goods. Subsequently the Mediterranean fund and other demands on the 
treasury, caused an increase of this duty to 15 per cent; at which it re¬ 
mained until the war with Great Britain. At the session of Congress in 
1816 the secretary of the treasury reported that the exigencies of the gov¬ 
ernment, could be met by a reduction of the duties to the standard fixed 
prior to the commencement of hostilities. The first inroad on the consti¬ 
tution, in this respect, was then made, when the situation of the manufac¬ 
turing interest induced Congress to leave the duties at 25 per cent. What 
was then solicited as a boon, was soon demanded as a right; and when 
the Harrisburgh convention, and Congress, in pursuance of their recom¬ 
mendation, recently raised those duties to range from 60 to 150 per cent, 
they confidently appeal to the practice of the government to authorize a 
measure which receives no countenance from the constitution. 

The recent message of the President, places the constitutionality of the 
tariff'on the ground that the states have parted with the power to protect 
manufactures, and if Congress have it not, then the singular anomaly is 
presented of a government without the power to protect its own domestic 
industry. Perhaps it is not the most satisfactory argument that Con¬ 
gress possesses a power because the want of it would render our govern¬ 
ment anomalous. But have the states parted with this power ? Alexan¬ 
der Hamilton enumerates in his celebrated report no less than eleven 


t 168 j 

modes of protecting domestic industry; and among them he indicates ids 
own preference for “ bounties.” This mode,and almostevery other, is still 
open to the'states. If, too, the view presented by a recent writer be cor¬ 
rect, the states may still protect domestic manufactures by duties on im¬ 
ports, levied with the consent of Congress. Thus the states have now all 
the powers in this respect, which they possessed prior to the adoption ol 
the constitution; and no new anomaly has been introduced by the omis¬ 
sion to rest these powers in the general government. 

Without detaining the committee by an inquiry into the expediency ot 
the American system, or the extent of its partial and unjust operation, it 
was sufficient for them, it ought to be sufficient for others, to know, that 
the establishment of such a system was not within the powers granted to 
the Congress of the United States. The great inquirf was, have the seve¬ 
ral states any remedy but revolution ? This was the true issue presented 
by the respective resolutions, which had been proposed to the committee. 
Is this a government whose operations can only be controlled by the su¬ 
preme court; and, where the question is such as cannot be submitted to 
that tribunal, is the government uncontrollable save by its own judgment, 
and not amenable to any tribunal? Or is the federal compact ot such 
character that the government created by it is not the exclusive judge 
of its own powers, nor can any tribunal, organised under it, determine 
definitively on the original and reserved rights of the parties to that com¬ 
pact. In die language of gentlemen this question was of infinite magni¬ 
tude not only to ourselves, but to ages yet unborn. If the former be the 
true character of the government, it would probably not be urged by the 
advocates of convention that the crisis had yet arrived when the state 
should assume the attitude of revolution, should exercise “ the unalienable 
right to abolish old, and constitute a new government.” v 13ut if it can be 
shewn that, by the true theory of the compact, each state may judge for 
itself whether the act of the general government be a violation of the con¬ 
stitution, then, when it has so judged, it will readily be conceded that such 
a state is not bound by the compact to submit. If it does submit it must 
be because the infraction is not of sufficient magnitude, or because it is 
unwise to oppose poiver ; and not because of any obligation arising out of 
the agreement. In our country , this distinction should always be borne 
in mind. If the general government be authorized by the constitution to 
enforce an act, which any one of the sovereign parties to the compact 
should solemnly adjudge to be a violation of that compact, then, as we are 
emphatically a law-abiding people, nothing but extreme oppression would, 
or should, drive to opposition. If, on the contrary, each state may judge 
for itself, then, as we are also a l ight-maintaining people, the same spirit 
would induce the state to sustain that right—the consciousness of recti¬ 
tude would add strength to their energies and the same conviction, im¬ 
pressed on the general government, would unnerve the arm of power. If 
it can be made apparent that such right exists in the states, respectively, 
and if, as we believe, under our institutions right must ultimately succeed, 
there is an original presumption that some practicable mode must exist 
of giving effect to that right. In sucli an inquiry the relative physical 
power of the general government and of an individual state is a consider¬ 
ation alike unworthy of them and of us. 

In the course of his remarks it would be his effort to shew, first, the cx- 







[ lti9 ] 

istence of the right—secondly, that if the right exist, and the occasion 
should justify the assertion of it, then we have strong ground to hope from 
the character of our country and its institutions, that opposition to many 
will terminate successfully—third, that it is a crisis peculiarly favorable 
tor making the political experiment, if such it should be termed; and that, 
in any view, the chances of success were worth all the hazards of the 
struggle. 

Has any state the right to determine for itself on the constitutionality 
of an act of Congress ? 

Has the state the right to oppose, within its own limits, the exercise oi 
a power on the part of the general government, which such state shall pro¬ 
nounce unconstitutional. 

The affirmative of both these propositions, it is believed, are clearly de- 
ducible from the theory of our government. 

Prior to the adoption of the constitution it is admitted that the states 
were sovereign and independent communities. It will be conceded, too, 
that, from the declaration of independence till the adoption of the consti¬ 
tution they were sufficiently jealous of their sovereignty. The constitu¬ 
tion itself was a reluctant concession made by sovereigns of certain pow¬ 
ers for the benefit of the confederacy. No act of theirs gives countenance, 
to the suspicion that in yielding up certain rights they intended to impair 
their character, or change their relative situation, as sovereign states. All 
their conduct repels any such presumption. The states, that is, the people 
of the states, had formed the articles of confederation. Unless they re¬ 
ceived the assent, express or implied, of those, who constituted the sove¬ 
reignty of the states, those articles were not obligatory. The constitution 
was not originally framed by the people, but by delegates chosen by the 
states to amend the articles of confederation. They determined that it 
was expedient for the several states, whom they represented to grant 
certain powers to a new government, which they proposed to establish in 
order to promote the prosperity, and perpetuate the union of the states.— 
This compact was formally submitted to the several states in their sove¬ 
reign capacity, that is, to the people of those states ; and they, by ratifying 
the instrument, agreed that the state should depute, or surrender to the 
general government the powers therein specified—As to the powers not 
granted their character was not changed, their exclusive right to exercise 
those powers was unimpaired, their sovereign control in respect to them 
unrestricted. In the terms of the resolutions adopted by the republican 
party in ? Q8 “to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an 
integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.” “ The 
constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, 
given by each in its sovereign capacity. The states then being the parties 
to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows 
of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide 
in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated. The 
government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final 
judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would 
have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its 
powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having 
no common judge, each party has ail equal right to judge for itself, as 
well of infractions, ns of the mode and measure of redress ’* 

or* 


170 


It is said that the omission to provide a tribunal to determine questions 
affecting the sovereign rights of the states would argue a deficiency of 
wisdom and foresight on the part of the framers of the constitution alto¬ 
gether inconsistent with their character. This is the favorite argument 
adduced by modern latitudinal' ians for the exercise of all implied powers. 
But, if driven to this a priori mode of reasoning, is not this omission far 
more probable than that our keen-sighted ancestors, fully aware of the 
proverbial tendency of all governments to usurp authority, and of all 
courts to sustain the usurpations of government, that they should have 
committed to a judiciary, established by the general government, the 
power of finally deciding whether that government had transcended its 
powers, whether the reserved rights of the original parties to the compact 
had been invaded by the authorities of their own creation r Leaving, 
however, the field of speculation, and turning to the history of the instru¬ 
ment it is manifest that this difficulty was foreseen ; but that no satisfac¬ 
tory project could be devised for adjusting differences of a character, 
once so important and so delicate, between parties having all the attri¬ 
butes of sovereignty. Perhaps their posterity, enjoying all the lights of 
experience, and all the improvements of the age, would find their efforts 
for the establishment of such a tribunal not more successful. The cele¬ 


brated case ol Chisolm and the state of Georgia, and the amendment of 
the constitution soon after adopted, affords an instructive lesson both as 
to the early disposition of the federal judiciary, and the prompt resistance, 
which was made to any encroachment on the dignity of a sovereign state. 

But it h as been said, with some appearance of triumph, that this suppo¬ 
sed right of a state, if it be not revolutionary, must be constitutional; and 
il constitutional then it must be determined by the supreme court, as by 
3 art. 2 sec. “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and 
equity, arising under this constitution.” 

The right of the state is not revolutionary , the right to abolish old, and 
constitute new governments. It is the right to preserve the old govern¬ 
ment in its pristine purity. It is a right not arising under the constitu¬ 
tion, or indebted to any provision of the constitution for its existence. 
But it is a right growing out of the original character of the compact, and 
dcducible from the relative situation of the contracting parties. 

The question as to the reserved rights of a state is neither a case, in 
law or equity. The supreme court was established for the adjudication 
o icivil rights, not the adjustment of great imlitieal disputes. Differences 
arising between individuals are properly submitted to their decision, and 
are usually determined with distinguished wisdom—But, by what form of 
pleading could the question, which has divided a large portion of this 
confederacy, the right of Congress to establish a central system of internal 
improvement, be fairly submitted to the supreme court? Ail the appa¬ 
ratus of the court would fail. If a case could be made up, it would be 
decided on narrow, technical principles, in which the true question would 
never be considered. The machinery w'as never intended for such pur¬ 
poses. 


But the gentleman from York (Mr. Williams) had urged that the judi¬ 
cial power extended to all controversies to which the United States shall 
be a party—A candid review of this provision of the constitution will 
satisfv the mind that controversies included no more than eases in law and 


I ' L 171 J 

equity us used in the preceding part of the section, and so it has been 
regarded by the most zealous advocates of the authority ot the supreme 
court. It has been shewn that the constitution is a compact between 
sovereign states, by which they agreed to form a government tor certain 
spec! tied purposes; and with that view, each surrendered certain portions 
of its sovereignty; reserving, of course, all rights not expressly surren ¬ 
dered. In the language of Judge Nott (Cameron vs. W urtz,4 M‘Cord 2/ 9 
“it must be admitted that the states are independent sovereignties, except 
so far as they have surrendered their sovereignty by the federal constitu¬ 
tion. In all other respects they must still stand in relation to each other 
as foreign states. If the controversy be a case in law or equity arising 
under the constitution the supreme court has jurisdiction. It, on the con¬ 
trary, the controversy regards certain reserved rights ot the states, certain 
powers not embraced by the constitution, then the supreme court have 
no more jurisdiction than in a dispute between two European soveieigns 
as to the property of a mine in Saxony—In order to give the court cogni¬ 
zance of the matter the preliminary question must first be detet mined • 
Their decision can be ot no authority unless it be assumed that it is a case 
in law or equity arising under the constitution. In other words unless 
the state concedes that this right formed part ot the subject matter toi the 
regulation of which the compact was made—and this concession would, 
ofcourse, be an abandonment of the controversy. Suppose the territory 
called the-United States iiad belonged to thirteen European potentates— 
that they agreed upon a plan ol government tor their territory, ahd sent 
out commissioners with authority to make laws, and establish comts to 
decide all cases arising under the compact ot the loius piopuetois, b} 
which compact all powers not specifically delegated were expressly re¬ 
served to the high contracting parties. In a controversy between one, oi 
the whole of the lords proprietors and the commissioners, as to an a legect 
usurpation on the part of the commissioners, o! powers not granted by the 
compact, could the court, organized by the commissioners, determine the 
controversy. If the tribunal be competent does it require any skill m 

nropheev to anticipate the decision. , , 

Suppose the thirteen proprietors should all ngree as to the interpreta¬ 
tion of the instrument, and that the act of the commissioners was an usur¬ 
pation of their reserved rights, would the contrary decision ot the commis¬ 
sioners court be paramount? If so, are not the proprietors deprived or 
every attribute of sovereignty? Are not their reserved Tights a mere 
name? But does not reason, on the contrary, clearly indicate that, unde, 
such circumstances, the question as to the original, grant of ttie poivei 
must be settled, not by the commissioners, or their tribunal, Ut by the 
parties to the compact ? And if the question be made by a single sove¬ 
reign must he not necessarily judge for himself ? in toe absencei ot any 
tribunal of paramount authority each must judge for itself ootn as t t 
violation of its rights, the expediency of submission or resistance, and, it 
“ b r b determined, -.vha't shall be the mode and degree ot opposition. 
The country has been alarmed with the assurance that the exercise ot 
an y portion of this right on the part of a state would a mount to reason oi 
rebellion ; and even the committee have been warned tluu the mildest con 
struction would make it secession from the union, a withdrawal horn the 
pKLTnferleraoy. No one in the course of the debate had contended 


that a. state couiti be guilty of rebellion, or hail suggested that there was 
any disposition “to levy war against the United States/ 5 

But will the exercise of this right amount to secession ? The states are 
sovereign and independent parties to a compact or treaty, under which a 
government is formed. Each state judges for itself, whether that govern¬ 
ment keeps within the bounds prescribed by the compact. An act is done 
by the government, which one state regards as a transgression of those 
limits—may not that state assemble, debate on the obnoxious act, and de¬ 
clare that this act is not warranted by the compact ? Would this declara¬ 
tion amount to secession? Has not South Carolina, through her Legisla¬ 
ture, made this declaration as to the tariff' and internal improvements ? 
Do not many believe the sovereign authority to belong to the Legislature ? 
And has any one supposed that South Carolina has seceded from the 
union. 

May not two sovereigns differ as to the interpretation of a treaty—one 
pronounce an act of the other to be an infraction, and the treaty still con¬ 
tinue? May they not expostulate, remonstrate, the courts of justice 
within their respective dominions proceed in deciding under the treaty, 
and ultimately a compromise be effected P All this happened under the 
treaty of 1783 with Great Britain. Her refusal to surrender the western 
ports, and the embarrassments thrown in the way of British creditors, 
were the fruitful source of crimination and recrimination. The countries 
were brought to the verge of a second war, yet the treaty was in other re¬ 
spects observed, rights were adjudicated under it, and the political differ¬ 
ences between the governments were amicably terminated by the treaty of 
1794. An infraction in a material part may warrant the withdrawal from 
a compact; but attempts to heal the infraction, to accommodate the disa¬ 
greement, evince no disposition to withdraw, and cannot be so regarded. 

But suppose the worst—that the state should determine that it was in¬ 
expedient to submit to this usurpation on the part of the general govern¬ 
ment, and should proceed to the adoption of measures to impede the 
operation of the government, as to that act , within the limits of the state, 
ivould this be secession? It is submitted that it would not—that it may, 
in the course of human events, lead to this result, no one will venture to 
deny ; and so may any indignant remonstrance against the usurpations of 
Congress, which has ever been uttered in our legislative halls. If complaint 
only induces an accumulation of oppression, complaint may lead to resis¬ 
tance, and resistance terminate in secession. But neither complaint, nor 
legitimate opposition to unconstitutional oppression, are secession, nor do 
they, necessarily, or naturally, lead to secession. May not the parties to 
a compact, composed of several parts, continue that compact, though one 
of the members may refuse to allow a particular power to be exercised, 
which that party supposes not to be granted by the agreement? Is there 
no case in which a state may interpose to arrest an act of Congress with¬ 
out abandoning the union ? Suppose the supreme court pronounce an act 
unconstitutional—nevertheless the President and Congress persist in en¬ 
forcing its provisions—may not a state interpose in such a case ? and 
would such interposition amount to secession ? Suppose the contemplat¬ 
ed proceedings of the general government against the state of Georgia, 
during the late administration, had been prosecuted by Gen. Gaines, un- 
der the sanction of an act of Congress after a decision of the supreme court 










!' CHS]' 

against their constitutionality, may not the Hancock troop oi horse have 
been fairly put in requisition to resist such aggression ? Would the integ¬ 
rity of the union have been violated by this act of a sovereign state? 
Would Georgia have been regarded as withdrawn from the pale of the 
confederacy? If a state possesses the right to determine for itself as to 
the unconstitutionality of an act of Congress, the right to resist, after 
such determination, is just as perfect as it the supreme court had pronoun¬ 
ced a similar judgment. Resistance in one case is no more secession than 
resistance in the other. It is true, that in both cases, the interposition of 
the state may lead to secession. The general government may persist right 
or wrong; and the state be driven out of the union, or coerced into submis¬ 
sion. In either case, the general government could only be effectually re¬ 
strained by moral opposition —physical resistance alone would be equally 
fruitless whatever tribunal may have pronounced on the nullity of the act. 
It is said that the judgment of the supreme court renders the act a nullity, 
or rather pronounces, that it is not law, and that any proceeding of the exe ¬ 
cutive under such act would be wholly without authority and might be re¬ 
sisted by any individual. This argument though correct, is founded on 
the position that the supreme court have the power to pronounce on the 
i constitutionality of the law, and that the co-ordinate branches of the gov¬ 
ernment are bound bv their decision. The state has an equal right to pro¬ 
nounce for itself; and as to itself after such judgment, the act of Congress is 
equally a nullity. Rut the object was to show that resistance was not se¬ 
cession ; as in every other case of'treaty the question is one of expediency. 
On the one hand, how long will the state submit to encroachment, and to what 
degree ; on the other, will the general government coerce obedience to an act 
(so pronounced to be unconstitutional by one, or by many states,) and thus 
hazard the loss of a portion of the confederacy, or forego the partial ad¬ 
vantages of the act, and secure the integrity of the union. 

According to the view which has been presented to the committee, each 
state assembled in its sovereign capacity, has the right to judge of the pow¬ 
ers granted by the constitution, to determine whether other powers, not 
"•ranted, have been usurped—whether it is expedient to interpose in order 
to arrest that usurpation—and what will be the mode and measure of such 
interposition. Such was the doctrine of the republican party in 1798- 
Some of the states then regarded this doctrine as of a dangerous tendency, 
and urged then, as it is contended now, that “the supreme court of the 
United States possessed the authority, ultimately, and exclusively, of de¬ 
ciding on the constitutionality of an act of Congress/ 5 In 1799, the Vir- 
ginia1e°islature, who had been most zealous in maintaining the true prin¬ 
ciples of the constitution, revised with a critical eye their resolutions, 
which had thus met the disapprobation of some of their sister states ; they 
“ examined fully the objections and arguments which had appeased against 

_they re-affirmed the sovereignty of each of the states ; and in 

reply to the prominent position so strenuously urged upon them, that the 
supreme court was authorized to dec.de controversies involving the politi¬ 
cal rights of the states, the language of the report is too plain to be mis¬ 
apprehended, and too powerful to be resisted. “ However true, therefore, 
« ^ m ay be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it 
« by tj ie forms of the constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort 
“must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the 



- “ oilier departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the 
"parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as 
“the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hy- 
“pothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority 
“delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in 
“usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach ot 
“any rightful remedy, the very constitution, which ail were instituted to 
“preserver 5 The resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky maintain then 
the doctrine that in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitution¬ 
al compact, the decision of the supreme court would be without authority. 
But a new version has been given to these resolutions. It seems to be 
conceded, that they deny the authority of the supreme court; but it is 
said according to the principles of 179S, the states must decide in the last 
resort, and that this means not each state to decide for itself, but a majori¬ 
ty, or two-thirds, or three-fourths, or the unanimous voice of all the states, 
can alone decide. It is believed that this construction was never suggested 
until within the last twelve months. It would be not a little remarkable 
that the Legislature of Virginia and Kentucky, representing the rights of 
a minority, and contending vigorously for the means of vindicating those 
rights, should have expended all their efforts in maintaining the principle 
that a controversy as to the rights of a state, must be settled by the judg¬ 
ment of all, or a majority of the states. It would be, too, not less re¬ 
markable that the promulgation of a principle, paying such dcfferencc to 
the will of a majority, should have given such umbrage to any portion of 
the confederacy. But without suggesting all the objections which might 
be offered to this modern theory, it is perhaps enough to say that brj the 
compact no judicial power whatever is given to the states. The right of 
each state to judge for itself, arises not only from any clause in the agree¬ 
ment, but from the character of this treaty between sovereign powers, in 
which treaties, the right of the majority is never recognized. 

This right of a state is sovereign, and therefore unqualified. The doc¬ 
trine of nullification as recently expounded was not a paid of this theory. 
It was difficult to understand precisely the meaning which was attached 
to the term; but some of its advocates contended,that by the construction 
of the constitution itself, each state had the right to nullify an act of Con¬ 
gress, and that Congress were thenceforth bound to desist from enforcin'*' 
this act, until three-fourths of the states had pronounced the power exer¬ 
cised to be among those granted, or until three-fourths of the states had 
granted the power, and in either event, the resisting state would be bound 
to acquiesce. For his own part, he was not prepared to say that the abso¬ 
lute veto of a Roman tribune, would not have been a power wisely con¬ 
ferred on each state of the confederacy by the very terms oi the compact. 
(Jeer-legislation was the besetting sin of the age—it was the bane of our 
republican governments. Experience had satisfied him that much more 
danger was to be apprehended from the rapid and headlong progress of 
the machine, than from any impediments which might obstruct the career: 
but he was willing to take the constitution as he found it. Two years 
since, he had stated in the debate on this doctrine of nullification, that it 
was not contained in any apparent provision of the constitution, and that 
our warfare was against implications. Subsequent reflection had caused 
no change in his opinion. The right of a state is an absolute, sovereign 


right, depeiKling j on no clause in the constitution, and on no com 
of it. Three-fourths of the states have no authority whatever, by 

r'/ nil -/ /7 h /\ n a. >«rt •->!<%<] J nr n 4~ « rt n 


istruction 

... -..... ....__ by the con¬ 

stitution, to determine what powers have been granted by that instrument, 
and what withheld. Three-fourths have the power to amend, and no 
more. They have no power to change the form of government, no power 
of creation, but simply of amendment; and an act of Congress, changing 
the vital principles of our institutions, would not be obligatory on a state, 
although it may have received the sanction of three-fourths of the confede- 
racy. To such act, the state ought not, and would not submit. And yet 
if three-fourths can decide, or can confer the power, we are bound hand 
and foot. The tribunal of our own appointment has decided against us— 
our cause is gone. We have lost the great energy, the strong moral influ¬ 
ence with which the advocates of the law and the constitution always con¬ 
tend for victory, and we have indeed no remedy left, but the right of 
revolution. 

The state having the right to judge, and to exercise all powers incident 
to that right, is the condition of our affairs such as renders it expedient to 
submit to the people of the state whether there has been a violation of the 
compact, and whether the encroachments are of such a character as to 
rccpiire the notice of the state in her sovereign capacity, and if so, to leave 
to their wisdom the adoption of such measures as may remove, or prevent 
the progress of the evil. 

The cause in which the state is embarked is of the last importance to 
the union. In the contest of principle against power, South Carolina has 
hitherto been foremost in the van. Her march has been onward. The 
violent excitement among the people, our intestine commotions, the de¬ 
bates in our legislative halls, have compelled inquiry into the doctrines 
she advocates. Truth requires only to be heard. We are told that 
Congress lias exhibited evidences of a disposition to relax the restrictive 
system; and that the veto of the president has checked the progress of 
internal improvement—that we should desist from our exertions and wait 
the course of events. If the signs of the times be auspicious, if any gleam 
of hope appears in the horison,all is attributable to the efforts which have 
been here and elsewhere made, and all will be lost if those efforts abate. 
It is not a time to abandon opposition, or to seem to abandon it—our op¬ 
ponents have been influenced—not kv fear of our acts, but by the sense of 
truth and justice, Which our struggles have brought home to their under- 

. " TP- 1 * • • 1* * 1 1 1 L J. 1 _ „ ^ .1 /1 f h r 


UUIU UUV4 jwwv.vv, .. .. - no O j . 

standings. Intelligence is disseminated through the country, and the 

© © . . - , t * • • _i -_:_ i. *1. „ 


cause of correct principles gams converts. Maine is arrayed against the 
tariff—a recent state convention in Vermont have protested against it—in 
Mew Hampshire a large portion, if not the majority, are opposed to it— 
in Massachusetts all parties have united in pronouncing a tariff for pro¬ 
tection equally inconsistent with the principles of the constitution and 
the poliev of the country. Some, it is true, have forsaken the faith; but 
a talented and powerful minority still sustain the cause of free trade, and 
will never consent to regard as hopeless, legitimate opposition to unconsti¬ 
tution legislation. New-York is against the system, and the principle ot 
encouraging one class of citizens at the expense of their neighbors has 
been pressed to such an extent in the American policy now so zealously 
recommended by a portion of their citizens, that the true character of the 
rdan is like!v to'be fully developed. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia. 





[ 170 J 

Alabama and Mississippi (if Tennessee may not be included) have always 
been with us in principle, however they may differ in the mode and mea¬ 
sure of opposition—the conflict, it is true, is a strong one. V e contend 
with states deeply interested, as they believe, in the maintenance ot a 
system, which we regard as unconstitutional. Any falling back, any fal¬ 
tering on our part, would be seized as an evidence of acquiescence, and 
would be hailed as a triumph. It is already done—The result ot a recent 
election, in which both parties were opposed to the system, caused the 
intelligencer complacently to predict that in a few years South Carolina 
would become a tariff state. !n older to succeed, the state must maintain 
her ground. No act, and no want of movement on her part, should afford 
countenance to such prophecies, or such taunts. 

The last resolution submitted to the committee proposes the call ot a 
convention to take into consideration our differences with the general 
government—whenever the state moves in its sovereign capacity it should 
be by convention. “In that mode the constitution was submitted to the 
states; and in that mode the states ratified it.” A declaration of the 
infraction of the compact should be made by the people of the state with 
the same solemnity, and according to the same forms. It is believed by 
many that the Legislature have no authority to supervise the proceedings 
ofthe general government, or to express any opinion as to their character. 
When it is considered with what facility resolutions are sometimes adopt¬ 
ed, few will ascribe to such expressions the same respect, which would be 
accorded to the deliberate act of the delegates of the people assembled tor 
that special purpose. Experience too must have satisfied us that the 
Legislature is not the most appropriate theatre fo£ such discussions. The 
subject demands a calm and undivided attention. Yet charged as we are 
with the whole business of legislation, and our minds harrassed by a vari¬ 
ety of important and unimportant elections, vvhocan say that he approach¬ 
es the consideration of this matter w ith the feelings and the temper, best 
calculated to ensure a wise determination. Ifthe subject is worthy of our 
deliberations the arena should be changed. 

But in order to allay the ferment, to remove doubt, the proper tribunal 
should determine the preliminary question. Ifthe constitution has not 
been violated the people will then wait quietly until oppression becomes 
intolerable. If it has been violated all will turn with a single eye to the 
means of redress. It is said convention will keep up the agitation of the 
public mind, and therefore should be deprecated ? Perhaps so. Repose, 
though pleasant, is not always safe. If opiates are administered, which 
lull the public mind into security it will not be the tranquility, which in¬ 
dicates convalescence, but the stupor which precedes death. Agitation 
will not however subside—The people daily learn more of their rights, 
and are more indignant at their violation. Nothing can restore peace but 
a return to constitutional government. 

A convention wmuld determine on the constitutionality ofthe act with 
all the promptness consistent with due deliberation. The people may 
always be safely trusted when the means of information, and time for re¬ 
flection have been afforded to them. In 1823 he had expressed the opin¬ 
ion that this was the only proper mode in which the state could proceed 
with authority. He then deemed the call premature. At no period of 
our political existence had information been so rapidly diffused among the 


L W J. 

people as during the last two years. lie would hazard the assertion that 
in no state of the union were the principles of our government more free¬ 
ly discussed or more diligently examined. A convention would be com¬ 
posed of delegates selected by the people from every class of society, 
charged with the consideration of this subject alone, and most intimately 
acquainted with the rights, as well as the wishes of their constituents. It 
may well be presumed that this body would be distinguished for intelli¬ 
gence, virtue, experience and patriotism. A convention cannot be limit¬ 
ed by the Legislature; but they maybe restricted by the people who ap¬ 
point them, when the people are assembled hastily, on the spur of the occa¬ 
sion, and without an opportunity of weighing maturely the important 
matters, which have rendered this appeal necessary, every mischief is to 
be apprehended from their proceedings. But a well informed people, 
conscious of the common interests, which they have at stake, and of the 
dangers in which those interests are involved, may be securely trusted by 
every member of the community. 

The meeting thus constituted would deliberate on our relations with 
the general government. If they deemed the proceedings of Congress 
within the powers of the constitution ; or, if they thought them infractions, 
yet not of such importance as to require the formal notice of a sovereign 
state, they would so determine—the people would acquiesce in their de¬ 
cision, and tranquility be restored. If they think otherwise they would 
pronounce their judgment—and here perhaps they would stop—or they 
would communicate the result ot their deliberations to other states, and 
then adjourn. All this might have the desired effect—time for reflection 
would be given—and our object might be accomplished. If not, the con¬ 
vention would re-assemble, and adopt such further measures as the exi¬ 
gency may require, or their wisdom may deem expedient. When the 
disposition of man is considered, his natural unwillingness to act against 
those, who wear the garb of authority, the strong, devoted attachment of 
our countrymen to the union, and the certainty that the convention will 
be imbued with all the feelings of the people : it is not to be apprehended 
that they will proceed too rapidly, or too vigorously in their measures ot 
opposition—This is not the quarter in which danger can be descried. 

1 But convention is a question of expediency. The advocatesof conven¬ 
tion appeal to their opponents to reflect on what the state has done, on 
the condition in which she now stands, and the rights which she professes 
to maintain. Their disposition is only to move forward; with all the 
deliberation which may ensure unanimity, but forward. They are not 
tenacious for the adoption of their own project—others profess the same 
disposition, but, objecting to the plan proposed, they tender nothing in its 

_they tell us that they act on the defensive: and in their zeal to 

defeat the proposition for convention they seem to forget that the state 
too is on the defensive, and that their duty is only half performed in suc¬ 
cessfully baffling, even the misguided efforts of their fellow citizens to sus¬ 
tain that defence— whatever may be the dissentions of party, the great 
cause should never be forgotten.—To this all eyes should be directed—in 

this all hearts should be united. 

One gentleman, it is true, ha s suggested a remedy—lie would propose 
an amendment to the constitution, that no money bill should become a law 
;Ofho U t the assnnt of two-third? of both house? pf Congress: and in the 

Oo 


,1 IW J 

/ 

event of the failure of this plan, lie indicated a readiness to secede from 
the confederacy. Avery little reflection must satisfy the gentleman that 
he is nearer to disunion than any of those whom he opposes. Under ex¬ 
isting circumstances, the defeat of his project is certain, and his deter¬ 
mination is made. With us secession is a cold and cheerless remedy—we 
may be driven to it—we will never seek it. Wedded to the union by 
every tie of sentiment and principle, we are ready “ to believe all things, 
hope all things, endure (almost) all things,” rather than sunder the cord 
which unites our confederacy. 

But if the measure of convention be not adopted, much may yet be done, 
flight principles may be established—by an interchange of opinion, preju¬ 
dices may be removed, and union in our ranks promoted. Without unan¬ 
imity anil harmony in her councils or in her acts, the state is powerless— 
with it, her energies will be triumphant. The advocates of strong mea¬ 
sures sincerely desire perpetuity to the union—to maintain it they would 
sacrifice everything but liberty. But if they dissemble their real object, 
if they “ think one thing, and another tell,” the friends of the union should 
not allow them to be the exclusive advocates of right principles, differ with 
them on these, and leave to those, whose acts they dread, this advantage 
with the people—they should accompany them, aid them, co-operate with 
them, while they are right, and only restrain their efforts when they would 
lead the country into error. 

On the other hand, we hear (without these walls,) those who oppose con¬ 
vention, stigmatized as submission men. Who compose this band ? One 
of them near me, bears the bullet mark in his forehead, which he received 
forty years ago at the battle of the Hanging Rock. Three of his brothers 
were in the battle of Fort Moultrie, and one was buried before the lines of 
Savannah—He has never yet learned the lesson of submission—He comes 
here to discuss his rights, to confer with his fellow citizens, and return¬ 
ing home to his constituents, he will inspire them with the same zeal for 
the maintenance of right which animated his own bosom in the days of 
.6. 1 here are others, who, in the late war, were the first to take up arms 

in defence of their country—I hey cannot readily believe that their rights 
have been wilfully invaded by those, with whom, and for whom, they 
have so cheerfully suffered. But an evil spirit is abroad in the land- 
power, and avarice and fanaticism have beguiled our rulers—the march 
is steady, and desolating—all will soon learn that the struggle must be 
made on the battlements, if we would not meet it in the citadel. 

Again he would iepeat, conciliation, and unanimity, is the true course 

our only safeguard—The session has been one of much heat—much ex¬ 
citement, perhaps some asperity. Let us all subdue our animosities, 
lorget our mortifications—forgive our injuries. Let us brin^ them all to 
the altar of our country, and who will say that the sacrifice shall not be 
accepted? Who will say that the united voice of a free and suffering- 
people may not yet reach the ears, and penetrate the hearts and convince 
the understandings of our opponents? The constitution may then be re¬ 
stored to its purity, and that union, which our fathers gave, and their chil¬ 
dren venerate.be rendered perpetual. 










W. It. HILL’S SPEECH. 

Mr. Hili. said, it was not his purpose to detain the committee with an 
elaborate argument on the unconstitutionally and oppression of the pre¬ 
sent tariff laws. Until this debate, he had supposed that there was on 
these points an almost entire unanimity of opinion in this state. Three 
several times had this Legislature and at each time by an overwhelming 
majority, declared these laws to be unconstitutional and oppressive ; the 
people in their primary assemblies, in every district and parish in the state, 
have expressed the same opinion, and although there may be much differ¬ 
ence of opinion as to the extent of their oppression, yet that they are op¬ 
pressive and to a most grievous extent, was, he believed, the opinion of a 
vast majority of the people of this state. 13ut as the gentleman from 
Charleston, who opened this debate, ('Mr. Huger) has thought proper to 
become in some sort the apologist of this system, and to urge many argu¬ 
ments in favor of its constitutionality, I must be permitted to recur to a 
few of the most prominent. 

The gentleman contended that the power to protect and encourage do¬ 
mestic manufactures, is conferred in that clause of the constitution which 
gives to Congress the right to “ regulate commerce.” If sir, the tariffs of 
’24 and ’28 were bona fide regulations of commerce, and had been enacted 
with the view to promote the commerce of the country, by counteracting 
the legislation of other nations, their constitutionality would not be de¬ 
nied ; but it has never yet been pretended by the warmest advocates of 
the American system, that this was their object, and I apprehend that it 
will not be contended that under the power to regulate , Congress has the 
right to destroy our commerce. The gentleman (as I understood him) in¬ 
fers that the power to promote domestic manufactures, is included in that 
to regulate commerce, from the fact that a proposition to give a distinct 
and substantive power to Congress for this purpose, was made in the con¬ 
vention which formed the constitution and was negatived. With all the 
respect which I feel for the inferences of that gentleman, I must be per¬ 
mitted to say, that nine men out often would draw a different conclusion 
from this fact—this proposition contained an important grant of power, one 
not known to the existing government, certainly too important to depend 
on implication. If then the convention intended to confer this power, it 
is difficult, if not impossible, to perceive why the proposition to grant this 
power in express terms, was rejected, especially when it is remembered 
that a majority of that body were enemies to construction, and excessively 
jealous of even the feeble powers of the confederacy. We learn from the 
published journals of the convention, that several distinct propositions on 
this subject were submitted for their consideration and referred to a com¬ 
mittee. After several days deliberation the committee reported that 
clause ot the constitution as it now stands, which gives to Congress the 
power “ to promote the progress of science and the useful arts , by secur¬ 
ing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their 
respective writings and discoveries.” Here is a refusal to give this pow¬ 
er according to either of the various modes proposed, and an actual grant 
of power on the same subject but in a different mode. The conclusion is 
irresistible, that the convention intended to confer no other substantive 
power for this purpose than that contained in this clause. 




L isu J 

Congress however, has the power (C to lav and collect taxes, duties,and 
imposts, to pay the debts,' 5 &c. and that domestic manufactuies may to 
some extent be constitutionally encouraged, provided such encouragement 
be merely incidental t o a tariff for revenue, has always been admitted. 
But the complaint on our part is, that the incident is converted into the 
2 )rincijjal —that the means which may be rightfully and constitutionally 
exercised to raise a revenue for the government have been employed to 
injure the revenue, and to effect objects not known nor contemplated .by 
the constitution, and that a legislative fraud has been practiced by an in¬ 
terested majority in Congress, acting it is true under the forms and ac¬ 
cording to the letter, but contrary to the spirit and intent of the constitu¬ 
tion. It is conceded that the government has no other powers than those 
expressly delegated, and such as may be “ necessary and proper/’ to carry 
the enumerated powers into effect. The rule by which we are to test the 
constitutionality of any measure of the general government, a rule which 
obviously results from the very nature of the government, and which has 
been adopted by the ablest expounders of constitutional law, is first to en¬ 
quire whether the authority to execute the measure in question, be derived 
from any express power in the constitution, and if not, then to enquire 
whether it be necessary and proper as the means to carry any express 
power into effect. We look in vain for that clause of the constitution 
which expressly authorises Congress to protect and encourage domestic 
manufactures by a tariff of protecting duties : nor is a tariff for tins pur¬ 
pose “ necessary and proper,”, to carry into effect any power expressly 
delegated. According to this sound rule of interpretation, a tariff*, the 
prime object of which is to encourage domestic manufactures by high pro¬ 
tecting duties, is unconstitutional. 

But it has been suggested that this system has political advantages in 
rendering us independent of foreign nations—and the gentleman in the 
course of his remarks, dwelt somewhat on the fact, that goods are now 
cheaper than before the passage of these laws. It was sir, with some sur¬ 
prise, that I heard these remarks. I had not expected to hear arguments 
like these, addressed to this committee, from a quarter so highly intelligent 
and respectable. That a nation which receives the manufactures of 
another country in exchange for its own agricultural products is not there¬ 
fore dependant on, or under any political subjection to that other, need 
not surely at this day, and before this committee be seriously argued. As 
for the suggestion that goods are now cheaper than before the tariff of 
1824,1 did not understand the gentleman himself to draw any distinct in¬ 
ference from this fact. If from hence, the committee are to infer, that a 
tariff* of protecting duties dispenses blessings on the country, by reducing 
the price of the necessaries of life-—that this system does not operate in¬ 
juriously to the interests of the south—it will be sufficient to answer that 
the manufacturers themselves, they who built up this system for the protec¬ 
tion and advancement of their peculiar interests, are the best judges of its 
operation. If then the effect of the prohibitory system be to reduce the 
price of the protected article, ifgoods can be manufactured as cheap here as 
in England and we can successf ully compete with her in foreign markets— 
ifgoods could not be purchased still cheaper under a moderate revenue ta¬ 
riff, why the necessity of any protection ? Why should they who repre¬ 
sent the protected interests, obstinately refuse to listen to any proposition 







L is‘ J 

to repeal or modify the system ? It is impossible to believe that a people, 
proverbial for a knowledge of their interest, should be so silly as to ask for 
tariff after tariff*, for the purpose of cheapening the price of their own 
commodities, and adhere so tenaciously toa system from which they derive 
no advantage. 

I shall not Mr. Chairman, stop to enquire into the probable extent of 
oppression under which we labor—the contrivers of this scheme have so 
arranged it, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain this with any 
certainty. It is sufficient for me to believe, that under the operations of 
this system, our commerce is seriously impaired, the price of our staple 
commodities depressed, and the wealth of one section of the union is trans¬ 
ferring to another, no matter whether the progress by which it is effected 
be slow or rapid—but above all, that there is a most dangerous violation of 
that constitution, on the integrity of which depends the liberties of the 
people, and which we have sworn to ‘‘protect and defend.” South Caro¬ 
lina has remonstrated and protested against the injustice and unconstitu¬ 
tionality of these measures for the last seven years, we have been answer¬ 
ed only by additional burthens of taxation—we have acted on the advice 
of the venerated Jefferson, and had “ patience and longer endurance with 
our brethren while under delusion; we have given them time for reflection 
and experience qf consequences,” and all reasonable hopes of relief from 
them failing, the anxious inquiry now is, whether there be no remedy for 
these evils short of a dissolution of the union. That these laws are uncon¬ 
stitutional, oppressive, and ought to be resisted, is almost the unanimous 
voice of this state—the mode of resistance is the difficulty—on this question 
parties have tormed. This is the exciting cause which has convulsed our 
state from the mountains to the seaboard. It is contended on the one 
hand that there is no other mode of resisting an unconstitutional act of 
Congress than by petition or remonstrance to that body, or secession from 
the union. While it is maintained on the other that the federal govern¬ 
ment being created by compact between sovereign states, and having only 
certain specific powers, whenever it exceeds its prescribed limits its acts 
are “unauthoritative, void and of no force,” that in case of a dangerous 
and deliberate violation of the compact, either of the parties has the right 
to “interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,” that this right is con¬ 
stitutional, resulting from the nature of the government; and that the 
exercise of this right is compatible with the union. 

It is now, Mr. Chairman, as it was in the beginning, there is now as 
there was when the government was organized, a party who advocate the 
supreme authority of the general government. History attests the fact 
that there was a party in the convention which framed the constitution in 
favor of a national consolidated government, in which the rights of the 
states should be merged—a government of a strong, high toned and aris¬ 
tocratic character. The efforts of the party failed, and the government 
remained in character what it then was, but with the addition of other 
important powers a confederacy of sovereign states for specific and limit¬ 
ed purposes. Immediately after the government went into operation, 
under the present constitution, and from that time onward, the same party 
lias endeavored to acquire for the government by implication, all those 
powers which had been denied by the convention. Their motives I shall 
not question—possibly they believed the government to be too weak and 


inefficient, tbai “there was more danger of anarchy among the members 
than tyranny in the head,” perhaps they doubted the capacity of the peo¬ 
ple for self government—doubtless they were for the most part, actuated 
by principles of the purest and most exalted patriotism. Individuals of 
this party, and holding these principles, ever have been and ever will be, 
advocates for power in the general government. That resistance by a 
state to an act of Congress, however unconstitutional, should be character¬ 
ized by them as treasonable and rebellious, is in perfect accordance with 
their principles. I have not made this allusion to the history of the par¬ 
ties of federalists and republicans, with a view to excite feelings which are 
long since extinct—but for the purpose of identifying the principles for 
which we now contend, with those of the republican party. 1 would offend 
the feelings of none, nor impeach the motives of any, but I would have the 
committee to remember, that although party names may change, party 
principles remain the same—'that although the national republicans of the 
present day may have thought prroper to drop their old title and assume 
another and perhaps a more popular name, their principles are the same 
now that they were in ’8 7 and ’98. 

The resolutions reported by the committee on federal relations contain 
the doctrines of the republican party expressed in the language of the 
Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky of’98 and ’99. Although it can 
scarcely be expected that the last resolution which proposes the call of a 
convention will be adopted at this time by a constitutional majority,yet as 
the foregoing resolutions assert the right of a state to interpose for arrest¬ 
ing the usurpations of Congress, and maintain principles on which the 
state may hereafter act—the committee will indulge me whilst I consi¬ 
der them. They embrace these propositions, that the federal government 
derives its powers from a compact between sovereign states—that each 
of the parties to the compact have the right to judge of its infractions,and 
as a consequence, the right to interpose in a sovereign capacity to protect 
her citizens from usurped power. These propositions cover the whole 
ground of controversy as to the right of state interposition, and are con¬ 
nected with, and dependant on each other; for if the constitution be a 
compact between several sovereignties having no common arbiter, each 
has the right to judge of its infractions, and the right to judge implies the 
corresponding right to enforce that judgment. 

By adverting to the history of the constitution and the state of things 
prior to its adoption, the character of the government and the relation m 
which the states stand to it will be best understood. Under the articles 
of confederation which continued in force until the adoption of the consti¬ 
tution, each state retained “its sovereignty, freedom and independence, 
and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which was not expressly 
delegated.” The third article declared that “the said states hereby 
severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their 
common defence—the security of their liberties, and their mutual and 
general welfare.” Each state had then with some restrictives the right to 
regulate its own commerce, and to lay imposts. The consequence was, 
that different commercial regulations" were made, and different rates of 
duties imposed. Foreign nations refused to treat with them separately, 
and the commerce of the nation suffered distressing embarrassment for 
the want of some common power to regulate it, and to establish uniform 



[ 183 j , ( t 

duties throughout the confederacy. It was principally to remedy this evil 
by conferring the powers on the federal government, to regulate commerce 
and to lay imposts, that delegates from the several states met in conven¬ 
tion. But having once convened they took other subjects into considera¬ 
tion, and alter several months deliberation produced the present constitu¬ 
tion. 'The character of the government was not changed by the new con¬ 
stitution; but new powers were added, the Legislature divided into two 
branches, and executive and judicial departments established. The dele¬ 
gates to that convention were chosen and sent by the several states acting 
as sovereigns ; they voted by states on every clause of the constitution. 
It was ratified by each state acting as a separate sovereignty—and then, 
and not until then was it obligatory upon the people of each state. Some 
of the states did not adopt the constitution for two or three years after it 
went into effect; and the instrument itself declared that it should only 
be obligatory on the states which ratified it. 1 have not recurred to these 
tacts because 1 supposed they were new to the committee, but because 
they are to my mind conclusive that the federal government is created by 
a compact entered into by the several states as sovereign parties; and 
that these states are now what they were before the adoption of the consti¬ 
tution, or even the articles of confederation—Sovereign and independent 
in all matters—not delegated nor prohibited; and that the character of 
the government is now what it was before, a confederacy of sovereign 
states for specific and limited purposes, deriving all its powers from a 
written compact—the constitution. 

The gentleman from C harleston foresaw that the consequence of admit¬ 
ting that the government is a confederacy of states, would be admitting 
the right of each state to judge of the violations of the constitution, and 
therefore contends that the government is of a mixed character, partaking 
of both the popular and federative principlet—he senate of the United 
States representing the state authorities, and the house of representatives 
the people. It is true, the house of representatives does represent the 
people—but not the people of the United States aggregately and collec¬ 
tively, but the people of the several states, as citizens of separate political 
communities and parties to the confederacy. 

Have the states severally the right to judge ol the infractions of the con¬ 
stitution? independent of all authority, and from the very nature of the 
government each state has this right. Among sovereigns then can be no 
superior, each state must therefore judge for itself, unless by the terms of 
the confederacy an arbiter is created to adjust their disputes. If the su¬ 
preme court be not that arbiter there is none, the gentleman from Charles¬ 
ton whilst he denies the right of a state to construe the compact for itself, 
does not refer to this court as the constitutional tribunal to decide ques¬ 
tions of disputed power between the states and the government; and we 
are therefore left to conclude, that Congress has the sole right to judge of 
the constitutionality of their own acts,—this would be to allow our 
agents acting under a special letter of attorney the right to judge of the 
extent of their own powers, and in the language of Mr. Jefferson, would 
;s make the discretion of the government and not the constitution the. mea¬ 
sure of its powers.” The supreme court has jurisdiction of certain sub¬ 
jects confided to it by the constitution—«cases in law and equity” ques¬ 
tions of individual rights, but in no part of that instrument is to he found 


i. |s ‘ ] 

any power given to that tribunal to decide controversies between tire 
sovereign parties to the government. Can it be believed that the framers 
of the constitution who were excessively jealous of the powers of the go¬ 
vernment ever intended to confer this vast prerogative on one of the de¬ 
partments of that government ? To whom then would this high power 
have been confided? to impartial men? No sir! whatever regard we 
may have for the members of that august tribunal individually, it cannot 
be denied that all their feelings and prejudices lead them to sustain the 
powers o t the government that appoints them, and the government that 
pays them. A recent occurrence in this state is proof sufficient, that that 
tribunal is totally unfit to decide on questions of disputed rights between 
the states and the government. Almost invariably from the adoption of 
the constitution down to the present time, the decisions of that court have 
sustained the legislation, and even enlarged the powers of Congress. The 
doctrines of the court in the case of M‘Culloch and Maryland, recogniz¬ 
ing the right of Congress to use an unlimited discretion in the choice of 
means to effect any constitutional object, confers as much power as could 
be desired by any government on earth. 

So far as the acts and declarations of other states may be entitled to 
respect as authority, the resolutions of the republican Legislatures of Vir¬ 
ginia and Kentucky of ? 98 and ? 99, are conclusive on this subject; what¬ 
ever different construction the ingenuity of gentlemen may devise, let 
them be tortured as they may, their plain reading will not admit of a 
doubt as to their meaning. They distinctly assert the right of a state to 
judge of violations of the constitution by the government, and the right to 
apply a remedy for such violations. The Virginia resolutions drawn by 
Mr. Madison, declare that the powers of the federal government result 
from the compact to which the states are parties “and in case of a delib¬ 
erate, and palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted 
by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and 
are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.” But 
we are told that the interposition here referred to is explained by Mr. 
Madison, in the Report, to mean remonstrance, or to ask the co-operation of 
other states, or to apply to Congress for an amendment of the constitution. 
It is true that the Report does refer to these various modes by which the 
states might interpose, but it does not therefore negative other and more 
effectual modes of interposition. If these kinds of interposition should 
arrest the progress of the evil, as they did in the cases referred to in the 
report, the alien and sedition laws, it is well. But let the committee mark 
the purposeful* which the resolution declares a state should interpose “for 
arresting the progress of the evil and for maintaining within its limits the 
authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to it,” the right to interpose 
for this purpose necessarily infers the right to use all the means necessary 
to make such interposition effectual; and if the modes of interposing enu¬ 
merated in the report prove ineffectual, a state clearly has the right ac¬ 
cording to the Virginia doctrine, to employ all the means which may be 
necessary to “maintain within its limits, the authorities, rights and liber¬ 
ties appertaining to it.” 

The Kentucky resolutions of the same period, drawn by Mr. Jefferson, 
are still more explicit; they declare “that to this compact (the constitu¬ 
tion) each stab* acceded as a state and is an integral party; that the go- 








i 


f 














'sernment created by tins compact was not made the exclusive or linal 
judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itselt, since that would 
have made its discertion and not the constitution the measure of its 
powers; but that as in all other cases of compact between parties having 
no common judge each party lias an equai right to judge for itself as 
well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” According to 
this resolution each state is considered an ‘integral party’ and each 
state has the right to judge of the unconstitutionally of an act of Congress, 
and each state has the right tojudge ot the ‘mode’ of redress. The 
'mode’ of redress is explained by another passage from these resolutioirs, 
which declares that “ a nullification by those sovereignties of all unau¬ 
thorized acts done under colour of that instrument (the constitution) is 
*he rightful remedy.” These resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky, and 
the report founded on the first, although at that time they received no 
countenance or support from the other states, powerfully and gradually 
operating on the public mind, produced a change in public opinion, hurled 
the elder Adams from office, and brought Mr. Jefferson into power; and 
from that time to the present they have been considered as the political 


Creed of the republican party. , 

This state sir, has recognized the principles of these resolutions, ror 
some time prior to the year 1825, and especially during the administration 
of Mr. Monroe, when the doctrine of constructive powers was pushed to 
alarming extent, the federal government instead of being regarded 
what it really is, a copartner of the state authorities, was here considered 
paramount to the states. It was the popular doctrine here that a state 
had no right to review or condemn the acts of the general government, 

«* that thef representatives of the people were under God responsible to 
the people themselves, and for the Legislature of a state to impugn any 
of the acts of the federal government or the decisions of the supreme court 
would be an act of usurpation.”* The resolutions adopted by the Legis¬ 
lature in 1825 maintained different doctrines, and from the discussions 
which then took place and the investigation which followed, a change m 
public opinion was wrought, and from that time forward the true charac¬ 
ter of the government and the rights of the states, have been well under¬ 
stood. These resolutions recognize the right of the state to judge o* in 
fractions of the constitution, and actually exercise this right by pronoun¬ 
cing all tariffs for the protection of domestic industry, and all measures of 
interna! improvement by Congress unconstitutional; and in 27 and 28 the 
game ri"ht was asserted and exercised in relation to these same subjects. 
The resolutions of the Legislature ofGeorgia,in 1828,speak in language so 
plain,and so clearly maintain the much reprobated doctrine of nullification 
that 1 must beg leave to refer to them. In relation to the subjects now undei 
consideration, they declare that “thestates respectively have the unques¬ 
tionable right in case of any infraction ot the general compact to complain, 
remonstrate, and even to refuse obedience to any measure or the geneiu* 
government manifestly against and in violation ot the constitution, and m 
short to seek redress of their wrongs by all the means rightfully exerciser 
by a sovereign and independent government. ’ In 1829; > irginui, e\ et tiuc 
to her principles,reasserted the principles of ’98, and declared that“ the con¬ 
stitution of the United States being a federative compact be^veen^^ereign 


*vl;\ p-Iofeau’s Uepoit in 182 i 








states, ill construing which no common arbiter is known, each state has the 
right to construe the compact tor itself.” I have referred to these author¬ 
ities in support of the right for which we are now contending, because this 
doctrine has been denounced as a modern discovery “of but a summer’s 
growth” and totally destitute of any just foundation. 

I hope sir, that it is now evident to the committee, that the federal govern¬ 
ment is created by compact between the states, as separate and sovereign 
parties, and that both on principle and authority, each state has the right 
to judge of the infractions of that compact. The right to judge ? What 
kind of right is this? Is it barely the right of the oppressed to ponder 
over his wretchedness— the right of a Turk to judge whether he deserves 
the bow-string? The right of one of our own slaves to judge wheth¬ 
er he deserves chastisement ? Or, rather is it not the right, and the con¬ 
stitutional right of a sovereign member of this confederacy, to judge wheth¬ 
er its federal agents, acting under specific powers, have transcended then- 
limits—and the right to interpose and protect its citizens from unau¬ 
thorized oppression ? The right to judge of the violations of the compact, 
necessarily and directly involves the corresponding right to enforce that 
judgment. They who admit the one must concede the other: and e con- 
verso, they who deny the one must deny the other. For if a state has not 
the right to resist an unconstitutional act of Congress, neither has a state 
the right to pronounce on theunconstitutionality of federal legislation, and 
this brings us back at once to the doctrines of Mr. Priouleau’s report of 
’£4, which were so severely rebuked by the subsequent resolutions of’25. 
How it is that they who admit the right of a separate state to judge of the 
unconstitutionality of an act of Congress, and claim this right as consti¬ 
tutional, can deny the constitutionality of interposing and acting on that 
judgment, I cannot, although perhaps they may, understand. But we are 
told that if the resolutions referred to, and which are relied on as authori¬ 
ty, mean any thing more than merely advisory measures, it is the right of 
revolution, by dissolving the union and breaking up the government. Bv 
referring to the resolutions, it will be seen that no such measure was con¬ 
templated, but on the contrary they declare “a warm attachment to the 
union of the states, to maintain which, they pledge all the powers” of those 
states, and “a firm resolution to maintain and defend the constitution of 
the United States against every aggression either foreign or domestic.” 
But this right of revolution is an inherent and unalienable right, one, of 
which we cannot be divested, and need not be contended for. That the 
Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky in ’98 and ’99 should have contend¬ 
ed so strenuously for state rights, that this subject should have been so 
elaborately discussed in our own state and the state of Georgia for the last 
live years, and at last to find that “ state rights” are mere abstractions, the 
i ights of remonstrance and reoellion, is to my mind, stange and utterly 
inexplicable, bir, if it be true that the constitution imposes restraints on 
the government, and yet that practically it is a government without limi¬ 
tation of power, having no other check than the consciences of those who 
administer it, it is high time that the minority who look to that instrument 
/Or protection,should understand precisely the ground they occupy, and 
'he kind of security on which thev rely. 


But we are told that for a state to interpose and prevent the operations 

an act of Uongres?. un^ensfifut^n' 5 ’ ar. \ (eo ios f anfi ?nv$i • 




gentleman from Charleston) the union is dissolved, li sir, tn'ey who ad 
minister the government should assume to themselves the right to judge 
“ ultimately and conclusively’ 5 of the extent of their own powers according 
to the doctrine of Mr. Webster, and should attempt to enforce their own 
construction of the constitution at the point of the bayonet, this would be 
the result. But this consequence would follow from the act of the govern¬ 
ment. The position contended for, is that the interposition oi a state 
against the usurped authority of the government, is perfectly compatible 
with the union. For the sake of illustration allow me to put one or two 
cases. Suppose Congress should pass another sedition law, subjecting 
certain individuals in this state to fine and imprisonment,, for exciting the 
people to treason and rebellion—this would be plainly unconstitutional 
Would South Carolina permit the operations ot this act^ Would not 
this Legislature have the right and exercise the right, to pass countervail - 
ing laws for the protection of her citizens, and would the state therefore 
be severed from the union ? Again : Suppose Congress should by act 
emancipate all the slaves of this state at a fixed price, and direct them 
to be transported to Liberia. Government agents are sent hereto carry 
the law into effect—would not this Legislature then define and declare 
what shall be treason against the state P W ould South Carolina submit to 
this legislation, or refusing obedience, is she therefore out of the pale ol 
this union ? In these cases, this state by the passage of contravening 
statutes, would be as we 11 protecting and defending the constitution as 
the persons and property of her citizens—she would be exercising hci 
reserved and constitutional rights. As a member ot the confederacy, tlie 
state would adjudge these laws unconstitutional, and then in the .anguage 
of the Virginia resolutions, “ interpose for maintaining within its limits, the 
authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to it.- 5 Meanwhile, her mem¬ 
bers of Congress are on the floor of the capitol, peaceably discharging their 
duties—the post office department would be in operation m this sta^e 
the federal judges administering the laws oi the government here— 
and the custom house officer collecting the revenue at the port of Charles¬ 
ton—in a word, South Carolina is still one of the states ot this union, ana 
it must depend wholly on the course of the government afterwards, wheth¬ 
er she would maintain that position or not. A\ ould the governmem at¬ 
tempt to enforce by military power the execution oi a law which a 
state had declared to be unconstitutional and should not be enforced m 
its limits P Even if they who administer the government were so chspos- 
ed, (which 1 am far from believing) they have not the po'ver o lo so vv.t - 
out the aid of the militia, and I have not thes sl.ehest belief thathey JoM 
imbrue their hands in the blood of their brethren. As for the eu.o ie ■ 
which the gentleman from Charleston has pronounced on the union, there 

is now as there ever was in this state but one opimo.i. In a propei , 

tachment to the union of these states, l will not admi u ' o ' 

tie,nan exceeds me. But sir, if I could believe as he f»* 

eminent of our choice could act so iniquitous!? as no • J . . j 

listen to the repeated complaints of a state ot^tlusun.on.butjoulddia 

goon its citizens into submission to law= winch t. y - would be 

stitutional and oppressive, it I believed tins, tin-'. ‘ ‘ nt 0 p this 

changed to the bitterest hate—instead of regarding the overnmen. ot tm 
nnioo with that veneration which f have been taught to tee! for it. f shoo . 



188 


l 


abhor it as a detestable despotism. Sir, ours is a government iWinded u., 
We affections of the people, and sustained by the force of public opinion. 
"Whenever it shall want these legitimate supports and shall require mili¬ 
tary aid to enforce the execution of its acts, so far from being entitled to 
our respect, it would justly deserve our execration. But would the gov- 
eminent permit the refractory state peaceably to withdraw from the uni¬ 
on, or withdraw from it protection, and thus virtually leave it out of the 
union. Sir, they who are interested in the continuance of this system, 
understand too well their own interests and our value to consent to this 
course’—they know full well that with a free and unshackled commerce in 
the south, the utter prostration and ruin of their interests would follow— 
All fears then from the employment of force by the government, or a disso¬ 
lution of the union may be regarded as idle and unfounded, for we may re- 
•y on the virtue and patriotism of the mass of the people who are not so 
deeply interested in the system, to prevent the one catastrophe, and safe - 
•.y calculate on the interests of the monopolists to prevent the other. The 
government then would be driven to this alternative, either to abandon tiie 
system at once, or to call a convention of the states for the purpose of set¬ 
tling the disputed powers by an amendment to the constitution, affirming 
this power to belong to Congress. Should this last course be adopted, we 
need not tear the result. But should a convention be called, and contra¬ 
ry to our expectations, an amendment to this effect should be obtained bv 
three-fourths of the states, we have still left that glorious right of revolu¬ 
tion which gentlemen now consider to be our only ultimate'resort. 

Arguments have been urged against this right on the part of a state from 
its inconvenience to the government. These are arguments against the 
expediency of exercising the measure, and not against the right itself. All 
that is now insisted on, is that the right be recognized, reserving it to a- 
convention to determine on the time and mode of exercising it. °It may 
often be inexpedient to exercise an acknowledged constitutional rmht. 
It would be highly inexpedient for the president to put his veto on *the 
annual appropriation bills for the common and necessary expenditures of 
the government, and yet he has the right to do so. But sir, this ri<dit of 
interposing never would be exercised but in extreme and urgent cases— 
cases which are believed to be flagrant violations of the constitution and 
oppressive to the people, and it were infinitely better that the exercise of 
this right by a state should subject the government to inconvenience in the 
exercise of doubtful powers, than that the right itself should not exist, 
.Nay sir, perhaps the belief by those who administer the government that 
this right may be lawfully exercised, would be the most effectual security 
against usurpation. 

I have thus, Mr. Chairman, endeavoured to shew that this state has fhe 
constitutional right to interpose and arrest the evils of which we complain 
and that the exercise oi this right, would not be attended with the frightful 
consequences which gentlemen predict. But sir; although I have no fears 
myself oi the result, 1 should not be acting with that candor which is due 
to the occasion, not to declare that there is no course of effectual opposi¬ 
tion which can be adopted by this state entirely free from danger—tor the 
consequences whatever they may be, they are responsible who have so per- 
s eve ring Jy held on m this unrighteous and unconstitutional course of legis 
at>on. J be dangers l apprehend are of a different kind and from an on 


1 bi) 


•posite cause, i. believe there is more danger to he apprehended to tin 
liberties ol the people from an overweening confidence in. the federal gov¬ 
ernment, passive obedience to all its measures, and an opinion of its om¬ 
nipotence—more from the corrupting patronage and growing influence of 
the government, than from any other cause. 

Sir, if it be true that we are subject to unconstitutional taxation, howev¬ 
er we may differ as to the time and mode of resistance, it is perfectly 
certain that on principle these laws ought to be resisted, if they are in* 
truth, unconstitutional and oppressive, the quantum of oppression should 
form but a small item in (lie consideration of this question. Let gentle¬ 
men disguise the fact as they may, we pay a most disgraceful tribute; the 
exact amount of that tribute needyiot, and cannot be, calculated by arithmet¬ 
ical rule, whether it be one million or one dollar the principle is the same* 
An insignificant duty of three pence a pound on tea, not perhaps five 
pounds of which were then to be found in the whole range of the back 
country, produced the American revolution. It was for principle our 
ancestors contended. They declared that they had counted the cost and 1 
found nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.” We sir, shall prove re¬ 
creant to the spirit of other days and forget the lessons of the 


lutionarv 


spir 
school, when 


we 


day: 

learn 


to 


.get 
submit 


revo- 

to unconstitutional taxa¬ 


tion, whether imposed by a British parliament or an American Congress. 
However, it may be beset with dangers and difficulties, the path of honor 
and of duty lies straight ahead. Sir, if the injustice of this system was 
made plain and palpable, the spirit of the south would scorn to chaffer 
about terms of compromise. Let this system of taxation be stripped of all 
the disguises which have been thrown around it and exposed in its naked 
deformity. Let the general government send their tax gatherers to 
collect the amount from the people directly which they now pay indirectly 
for the support of the American system, for the purpose of being distributed 
among the manufacturers in the shape of bounties, and there would by. 
found more than ten thousand Hampdens in South Carolina to dispute the 
payment of this tax. The gentleman from Charleston has said that some 
of our distinguished statesmen who assisted to build up this system are 
now urging the people onto resistance. Following no lead myself, not 
even “a Carolina lead,” whatever others may think i have too much con¬ 
fidence in the virtue and intelligence of my fellow citizens to believe that 
they would blindly follow the lead of any individuals however distinguish- 
«d they may be. 

I know, Mr. Chairman, that the party in this state who recommend 
measures of effectual and decided opposition to the encroachments of the 
government, have been denounced as traitors and disorganizes;—men 
whose honor and patriotism until now were never questioned, have been 
accused, and from high authority of seeking to elevate themselves on the 
ruins of their country. I would make no invidious comparisons but it 
may be asked, who are the best friends of this union and of the constitu¬ 
tion, they who (in the language of Madison) would “ watch over and op¬ 
pose every infraction of these principles which constitute the only basis ol 
that union : because a faithful observance of them can alone secure its ex¬ 
istence and the public happiness” who expose the iniquity and unconstitu- 
tionality of these laws, and recommend the means to rid themselves of the 
evils ; or fhev, who whilst thev admit the existence of the evil, recommend 



19(1 


M) means oi relief themselves, and reject that which is proposed uy others, 

ami who endeavor to allay the public excitement by glossing over its in 
justice, and tax their ingenuity in hunting up arguments in its favor. 

I hit sir, whilst we complain of the oppressions under which we now la¬ 
bor, there are other and perhaps greater evils in prospect. The course of 
federal legislation lor some years past shows that the government is fast 
verging to a single splendid consolidated government without limitation 
ot power. For ail practical purposes it has this character now. Yes sir, a 
government restricted by the constitution to a few simple and specific 
objects—A government created principally for external purposes accord' 



precisely 

ot its supporters. It sir, the government is not arrested in its course, I 
tear that the only rational hope of liberty for man will ere long be extin¬ 
guished, and that atterall the blood and treasure which been have expended, 
wc shall furnish another example of the utter inefficacy of all the forms 
ot government which have yet been devised to prevent the encroachments 
of power. By taking our stand firmly on the constitution and boldly 
breasting the current of usurpation, the government may, and I confident¬ 
ly believe will be brought back to its proper limits, the constitution saved 
and the union preserved. ? I’isin vain we look for relief from Congress. 
Whatever slight modifications may have been made, the principle will not 
be voluntarily abandoned. The President is against us on principle. The 
majority in favor of the American system will be strengthened by the in¬ 
vestment of more capital, and the numercial strength of its supporters in¬ 
creased by the apportionment under the present census. 

It is proposed that these important subjects should be committed to a 
Convention of th® people of the state, in order to deliberate thereon and 
to devise the means of redress. The mere call of a convention would be 
calculated to produce effect. It v'ould prove what seems not now to be 
believed, that the excitement in this state exists among the people, and is 
not the mere rant of politicians. And if they who profess such devotion 
to the union, and who denounce the course of South Carolina as tending 
to endanger it, are really sincere iri their professions they will retrace 
their steps. To the keeping of such a body composed of the talent and 
wisdom of the state, solemnly convened for the single purpose of deliber¬ 
ating on these subjects, we'neecl not fear to commit the destinies of the 
scale. lo their decisions all would agree—whatever difference of opinion 
exists amongst us, the honor and welfare of our state is the object of all. 
A convention would hush the angry workings of party spirit, and heal the 
unhappy political dissensions which now divide and distract the state. 
As there is now such diversity of opinion as to the course to be pursu¬ 
ed, it would concentrate public opinion, and unite us in some course of 
determined resistance or as a measure of expediency determine on uncon¬ 
ditional submission. 



SKETCH OF MR. PRESTONS SPEECH, 


M /V R £ ST0N sa *d*th*t ’ lle concurred with the gentleman from Charles- 
ton (Mr. Huger,) and the gentleman from Clarendon, (Mr. Richardson,) 
.si thinking that the matter under discussion was of very high importance, 
and that a large portion of its importance was derived from the danger,. 


>gv portion of its import 

involved in the decison which the House might come to. He did 


O' 

not 


^1 • i 1 , , ^^ '-uur. tvj. JUv. UIU IJUC 

think, however, that the danger attended a decision in favor of a prompt 
and efficient resistance to the tariff laws—for he believed that the state 
nad a constitutional, and therefore a peaceable mode of redressing them. 
Hut the danger arose from a supine acquiescence, under measures of the 
general government, which ail acknowledged to be unconstitutional and 
oppressive, tnough some might doubt whether they were palpably uncon¬ 
stitutional or intolerably oppressive. The danger was, that we should, from 
3 ear to year, permit the Congress of the United States to arrogate and 
exercise powers beyond the constitution—making one usurpation^ prece¬ 
dent for another—circumscribing the state powers as it extends its own, 
until the original form of government is totally destroyed, and by a silent 
revolution, one of unlimited, and uncontrolable sovereignty established in 
us stead. Neither the gentleman from Charleston nor the gentleman from 
Clarendon, (said Mr. Preston,) is able to express a stronger attachment to 
our form of government than lie felt. He not only regarded it with the 
instinctive affection which all feel towards the institutions under which 
they were born, with that pride which is the loyalty of republicans, and with 
that veneration which all feel for the work of illustrious ancestors $ but 
with that firmer, and cooler approbation which results from a deep and 
thorough conviction that it is wisely adapted to secure the great ends of 
government, the peace, security,and liberty of the governed. With this 
profound veneration for our political institutions, he felt alarmed at the 
danger to which they were manifestly exposed. The constitution had 
been broken into—all admitted it. Corruption and profligacy had rushed 
in—all admitted. No one denied that the form of government had alrea¬ 
dy been changed, and that further and more dangerous changes were 
threatened. This was the subject of his alarm—this was the danger he 
wished to avoid—this was the revolution he wished to avert. Gentlemen 
say, we should not wantonly endanger a government achieved with so 
much blood, and established with so much wisdom. Certainly not—but 
is the government which oppresses us, that which was established by tho 
blood and wisdom of our ancestors ? And shall we permit that to be su¬ 
perceded by one of more power, and more oppressive than that against 
which they revolted, and founded on no principle but the sordid and 
slfish purposes of our usurping rulers ? It is not now for the first time 
ascertained, that the forms of a free government are compatible with the 
ends of an arbitrary one. Gentlemen say, that the world looks to our ex¬ 
periment as the only remaining hope of freedom. But if these tyrannical 
laws can be fastened upon us without remedy, the experiment has failed, 
and the sooner we proclaim the failure the better. It cannot console us 
for the loss of liberty, that others think we are enjoying it; and if our in¬ 
stitutions establish an incurable tyranny, it is neither-candid or honest to 
hold them up for imitation. The business of the true natriot is to main 
their? what they shorn to he—restore them * 


true patriot is to make 

and preserve them in 


their original purity, and then hold them up as the proudest achieve 
ment of patriotic wisdom, and a fit example for the world to follow.— 
Such unquestionably was our government as it came from the hands of 
<the great men who formed it. A plain, simple and useful machine, 
intended to effect a few, designated objects, and admirably contrived 
for that purpose—but what is it now? if it had been revealed to Patrick 
Henry that in less than forty years, that government, which as it 
appeared to him then, was dangerous to liberty and the rights of the 
states would claim and exercise powers, which even his imagination did 
not dare to conjecture, the power of controling the labor, directing the 
capital, and seizing upon the territory of the states—in what terms of 
indignation and horror would behave denounced the treacherous device. 
No one state would have borne even the discussion of such a project of 
government. Simple and guarded as it purported to be—it was adopted 
cautiously—reluctantly, and with amendments; but if it was offered to 
those republican conventions, in its present shape, endowed as those who 
have the practical power to determine say it is, with these awful attri 
hutesy—will any man venture to say, that any one state would have adopt¬ 
ed it, or that any one state at that period would have permitted such a 
government to be imposed upon it, but at the point of the bayonet. The 
constitution, as now construed, is not the constitution of ’89. "it is not the 
work of those on whom our praise is habitually, and certainly most properl v 
bestowed. It is the work of other times, of different, very different men,-^ 
and the question which we are called upon to decide, is, whether we shall 
permit by our acquiesence the constitutional government of’89 to be super¬ 
seded, by a substitute, having nothing in common ■with its predecessor but 
the forms of its administration. This is the important question presented 
to the house by the report of the committee on federal relations. 

He was glad to observe the courtesy and coolness with which the debate 
was conducted. The violence which out of doors had impelled the parties to 
mutual exaggeration of each others principles had not manifested itself 
here, and thus far the house had heard nothing of that cry of pretended 
alarm—that hysterical exclamation of fearful words—bloodshed, civil 
war, treason, conflagration and murder! that horrid din which during 
the summer ° 


lie .was glad that nothing of this 
ignorant and frighten the 


the 

the 


Tore our ears asunder 
With gun, drum, trumpet, blundcrbus and thunder. 

trash hnd cant—intended to delude 
^ ^ weak—had been heard in the course of 

manly and fair discussion of which the gentleman from Charleston had set 
the example and which thus far had been adhered to. 

The discussions before the people during the last summer had of 
course produced a great deal of excitement, and in the violence of oppo ¬ 
sing parties which had, as it usually happened in such contests, been occa¬ 
sionally thrown into a position which it would not originally have selected , 
and occasionally motives and principles have been charged upon each! 
which neither would be willing to recognise. For the purpose ofasccr 
^ 1 ^ ^ ^ » a *. \ ,lia * king out distinctly the ground on which 

we stand, the committee of federal relations have announced their nrincF 
vies in a series of resolutions. Of the five first of these four are. in the far;-. 


[ 193 ] 


guage of Mr. Madison, and one in the language of Mr. Jefferson. It was 


thought best to use the words of these great apostles of the republican 
party as well on account of the high authority which they bear, as for the 
purpose of avoiding the imputation of novelty. There fundamental ca¬ 
nons of the republican party, rendered almost sacred by the circumstances 
under which they were announced by the men who proclaimed them, and 
the triumph which attended them it was supposed would not be controvert¬ 
ed in a Legislature known to be republican. They have not escaped how¬ 
ever, for although the gentlemen from Charleston and Clarendon have di¬ 
rected their attack mainly against the sixth resolution, yet it was impos¬ 
sible to reach it, but by trampling on those of which it is acorolary. How¬ 
ever painful or dangerous it may be to attack the principles of’8?, gentle¬ 
men must attack and overthrow them before the sixth resolution can be 
approached. 'Hie first five resolutions are a declaration of rights, which 
from their nature can have no remedy but that indicated in the sixth. 

Although the words of the sixth resolution are not those ot Mr. Madi- 
dison, the committee intended to express their conception of his meaning, 
in that most celebrated resolution of the Virginia assembly in ’99, which 
declares the remedy for the violated rights of the states. Mr. Madison’s 
words are “in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of 
other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties 
thereto have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the 
progress of the evil, &c.” That the power here declared, was, that any 
state aggrieved by an unconstitutional law, might redress itself, was never 
questioned until upon some recent occasion, Mr. Clay, with his accustom¬ 
ed boldness, undertook to give it a meaning, unheard of for thirty years ; 
not warranted by the grammatical construction—opposed to the whole 
context and purpose of Mr. Madison’s report, and in direct contradiction 
to its cotemporancous exposition. Mr. Clay, and after him the gentleman 
from Charleston, contends, that the words « the states,” in Mr. Madison’s 
resolution, do not mean “ any one state,” butsuch a number as may, by the 
mode expressly pointed out in the constitution, remedy the evil. Now 
the expression “ the states,” must either mean ail the states or any state: 
there is no qualification or limitation as to number, but the subsequent 
words, maintaining within their respective limits, clearly contemplate the 
exercise of the individual, not collective power of the states. 

The whole object and exigency of the Virginia resolutions, were to es¬ 
tablish a principle of action in the states not expressly pointed out by the 
constitution, but latent and resulting from the nature of the confederacy; 
and this principle was developed and defended by Mr. Madison, in a 
course of elegant and elaborate argumentation. Argument was certainty 
unnecessary to prove that the states might exercise a power expressly 
conferred upon them by the constitution—the power in two-thirds to call 
a convention. If nothing more than this was intended, the ’Virginia reso¬ 
lutions were a solemn mockery, and the argumentative report a most 
useless trouble. Mr. Madisorfmight as wel l have argued, and the Virginia 
Legislature have resolved, that Congress have the right to declare war. If 
would have been labor as wisely appropriated. Instead of this ridiculous 
and futile object, the labored exposition of those resolutions show clearly 
that the writer was drawing from the mass of residuary and undefined 

Tiowera belonging to the states, opc which had not been previously recog- 
* v ° or 


\ 


•o 


zed, and the existence of which might be disputed by the advocates ot 
e usurpations of the general government. 

And accordingly they were disputed, and on the very grounds now as- 
umed against us by the gentleman from Charleston. The federalists and 
ederal states in ’98, urged the danger of the power claimed by Virginia for 
he states—that the power to arrest an unconstitutional law (the power 
of nullification) would lead to anarchy and revolution—that the progress 
of the general government would be continually checked by the interfer-.- 
ence ofthe states—that the union would be made a rope of sand, and that 
the supreme court was the ultimate resort for the decision of constitution¬ 
al questions. These were the arguments with which the Virginia resolu¬ 
tions were assailed by the federal states, and by the minority in her own 
Legislature. Mr. Madison and his friends in the Legislature, replied to 
these arguments, denied that the supreme court was the only tribunal, and 
asserted the right of each state to vindicate its authority, and protect its 
citizens within its own jurisdiction. One party denounced the principles 
of Virginia as dangerous. Where was the danger, if the case was express¬ 
ly provided for in the constitution ? Where the danger, if two-thirds of 
the states were expected to concur before any action would take place r 
Or was it the mere right of remonstrance that was so warmly contended 
for on the one hand, and so violently opposed on the other? No one yet 
has been slave enough to deny or doubt the right of remonstrance and 
protest. Mr. Madison’s language in explanation of the resolution is most 
explicit. “ The states,” he said, “ being parties to the constitutional com¬ 
pact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can 
be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether 
the compact made by them be violated, and conscqently, that as the par¬ 
ties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort such questions as 
may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. Such was 
the emphatic language in which Mr. Madison avowed his opinions in 
>799: establishing beyond question that the committee have not altered 
the sense in altering the terms of the resolution, and that we have the au¬ 
thority of Mr. Madison for the preamble. 

Mr. Jefferson—a still more illustrious and venerable name, avowed the 
same principle in equally emphatic terms. The general government, he 
says, is not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent ofthe powers 
delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion and not the 
constitution the measure ot its powers—but that as in all other cases ot 
compact among parties, having no common judge, each party has an equal 
right to judge tor itself, as well of infractions as ofthe mode and measure 
ot redress. This was the doctrine avowed by him in the resolutions pre¬ 
pared for the Kentucky Legislature in 1788/ 

After a year ot deliberation and discussion, he still more explicitly 
reiterated the same principles, in these words—“ That the general states 
who formed that instrument (the constitution) being sovereign and inde¬ 
pendent,have the unquestionable right tojudge of its infractTon, and that 
a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorised acts done under 
color of that instrument is the rightful remedy.” This language, if any 
can be. is beyond mistake or cavil—it establishes the origin ol the doctrine 
of nullification in’99, and its author to be Mr. Jefferson. Neither the 
'•djnm or glory ot it belongs to the illustrious living nerson to whom the 


L 195 ] 

gentleman irom Charleston attributed it. With all due respect j to the 
. ugh office and higher merits ot that individual, the doctrine of nulli fication 
claims a more distinguished origin than even his name could give tjo it. 

I he Legislature ot Kentucky adopted the resolution prepared by Mr. 
Jefferson, and Virginia not only adopted those prepared by Mr. M adison, 
but passed a law upon the principles ot those resolutions, nullifying the 
sedition law, as far as it applied to the members of the Legislature. I There 
were no exceptions to the provisions ol that law. It was universa in its 
application, and made seditious words penal, wherever and by whomsoever 
uttered. 1 he Legislature nullified it in its application to its own mem- 
oers, and thus not only proclaimed the doctrine, but performed tie act of 
nullification. 


^ Georgia too has acted upon the same principle. In 1802, i 
Chisolm, that state passed an express act of nullification. Ii 


in the 


case ot 
4, Con- 
go.vern- 


In 18 

necticut and Massachusetts each nullified 

ment; and in 1830, Georgia has again acted on the same principle. 
I hese declarations of the. wise and decisions of the Legislatures , are the 
authority tor the constitutional power jn a State to arrest an uncoiisfd” 
tional and oppressive law. 

I here could be no difference of opinion in regard to the power of a state 
to protect itsclt, as a state, against unconstitutional laws of the general 
government, but for a fundamental falacy in regard to the natlire and 
origin of the latter. Upon these subjects a difference of opinion arose im¬ 
mediately after its organization, and divided the country, as every country 
wdll be divided where freedom of opinion is allowed, into partieslone ad¬ 
vocating the power of government, and the other the liberty of the people, 
ihese parties assumed the names of federalists and republicans. The 
aim ot one was to invigorate and enlarge the powers of the general gov¬ 
ernment, while the object of the other was to circumscribe and control 
them within their strict constitutional limitations. As long as pur insti¬ 
tutions exist, these divisious will continue, under whatever name may be 
assumed for the time. The federalists early assumed, for the purpose of 
promoting their views, what the gentleman from Charleston advocates, 
that the general government was created by the ‘people of the United 
States as a whole, while the other party contended that it w r as ctreated by 
the states. Important consequences result from either of these!positions. 
No one disputes the fact that the constitution was formed by a convention 
composed of delegates sent to it, by the states and not by the p iople. In 
that convention, the vote was taken on each separate clause of the con¬ 
stitution, by states, and the final vote upon the instrument was also taken 
bv states. It was then submitted to a convention in each state—not to a 

•J 

convention of the whole people—-and was to go into operation when a cer¬ 
tain majority of states, not of the people approved of it. By this last ar¬ 
rangement, it might have happened that a majority of the people were op¬ 
posed to the new constitution, at the moment it was adopted by the 
requisite number of states. Each state elects two senators and each state, 
sends members to the house of representatives accordingto its population, 
but each state must have one member—-each state votes for the president 
and vice president. In its whole origin and organization, therefore, the 
government is federal—the people never act upon it but as people ot t!>e 
states. In that department which has been supposed to be most peculiar- 


/ 










i ] 

y marked with the popular character, in the house of representatives, the 
lembers even there, are sept by the people ol each state-~-not by the peo 
le of all the states. North and Soutli Carolina cannot join in sending, a 
ember, although the districts may be separated but by an imaginaiy line, 
id although it may happen that the surplus population in these two con- 
Ijuous districts would be sufficient to send a third member. A majoiitr 
the people of the United States is in no instance made requisite, ihe 
nstitution, in no instance obliterates a state line, not even in those 
,rds so much discussed and so much relied upon, we the people ol the 
lited States.’ 5 The expression “United States,” however, is not m- 
ded to designate a certain territorial extent with the population upon 
}ut to point out the various political communities which were confede- 
ng. The people of South Carolina, the people of Virginia, the people 
Massachusetts, &c. each people retains its sovereignty, and acts and 
jes in the character of separate sovereignties, and does not permit the 
viduals of another to any participation 6f political privileges within 
erritory. A citizen of one state cannot vote for a member of Con- 
is in another state—a citizen of one state cannot represent another 
e in Congress. 

ssuming then both upon authority and reason, that the states are par 
to the compact, and that they have entered into it as free, sovereign 
independent states, it results necessarily, that each must decide for 
fall questions as to the nature of the compact, unless there is a tribunal 
dished for this purpose by the parties themselves. When South Ca- 
\ gave her assent to the establishment of the general government, it 
with the understanding, that its action should be circumscribed by 
hstrument creating it. " She said to that government, I consent that 
<o thus far, but no farther, beyond this I am not bound—and who 
iisay that she is bound beyond this P It is as yet admitted (in theory 
t s t) that the government of the United States is one of limited and 
eid powers—it is restrained from doing any thing not expressly per- 
»’<[ to it. Now it results from the nature of things, that that authority 
npn«- a restriction, has the right to enforce it. The express grants of 
ovvto the general government are restrictions upon the power of the 
fate—if the states break through these restrictions, they are guilty of 
surj/.on, and the general government will maintain its authority by 
u Ililng an unconstitutional law. On the other hand, the reserved pow- 
rs arrestrictions on the general government, and if it disregard these re* 
Iricths, why should not the states assert their rights in the same wav. 
lie nerved powers belong to the states as much as the delegated powers 
o to te general government. A state possesses as distinct and unequivo- 
al a ri;ht to grant the lands within its territory as the general govern¬ 
ment has to grant letters of mark and reprisal on the high seas. Now if 
outh Carolina should grant letters of mark and reprisal would it not be 
wnpetent for the general government, to protect itself from this invasion 
l its rights, by passing a law that all vessels making captures by virtue of 
ich authority should be deemed piratical—and it on the other hand, the 
-neral government should grant the lands of South Carolina, is it not 

I xr i- _ _ ... J I. * _ 


L 


iy 


the one ease as the other. Human ingenuity cannot devise u distinction 
between them—each by its act of nullification is protecting its own juris¬ 
diction irom encroachment, each preserving its own existence from de¬ 
struction, each arresting in its beginning a dangerous revolution. The 
right of nullification is in fact the right of self preservation—a right 
which the states in forming the constitution neither intended to or did 
surrender. If the right of resistance be destroyed, the right of tyranny is 
established. If there is no ultimate guaranty beyond its own decision, 
that the general government will not violate the constitution, it is a gov¬ 
ernment without limitation—the constitution is a nullity—state rights are 
a farce. This Legislature has but a permissive existence, is a tenant at 
will of its power. 

The power of arresting an unconstitutional law of Congress is not ex¬ 
pressly given to the states, and it is said, if the constitution intended the 
states to exercise a power ot so much magnitude, it would have conferred 
it in explicit terms. To this it may be answered, that if it had been in¬ 
tended to withhold tliis great conservative power, its negation to the 
states should have been in the most express terms. The writers of the 
Federalist regarded the states as conservators of the public liberty against 
the encroachments of the general government, and urged this as a reason 
for the adoption of the constitution. To them belongs all power which is 
not expressly denied. To warrant their deeds, they cannot be called upon 
to shew whence they derived their power, those who question it must 
shew where it is taken away. We cannot properly be asked whence we 
derive the right of nullification ? The true and only question is, where 
is it prohibited to us? Has any one, answered this question ? The only 
argument against it is that such a check upon the general government 
would be very inconvenient. All checks upon power are inconvenient to 
those who wield that power. Anarchy is the cry with which despotism 
frightens the timid into its toils. No government can be kept free but by 
strong and multiplied checks. The) 7 may be unwisely resorted to—they 
may produce inconvenience or confusion, but liberty cannot exist without 
them—strong cases may be supposed or put from history, but extremes 
answer extremes—and who would not prefer the ancient government 
of Poland, checked by a single voice, to the quiet and unchecked despo¬ 
tism which has succeeded it. 

The notion that the check by nullification does not exist, because it is 
not expressly provided for, is clearly proved to be erroneous by the tact, 
that the judiciary-have assumed and exercised it without any such ex¬ 
press delegation, and with the general consent. Indeed all who arc op- 
possed to us erect the supreme court into a grand, tribunal of nullification, 
and upon what authority ? upon the authority of an implication and an in¬ 
ference. Where is the grant to the five judges to nullify a law passed by 
both houses of Congress and approved by the President ? Is it possible 
that such a power can exist without the most unequivocal and distinct 
grant? It does exist and there is no grant. It is deduced from the na¬ 
ture of a constitutional government, from the judges oath to support a 
fundamental law. The same oath is taken by every member ol this Le- 
gisture, and the same power therefore belongs to it. Mr. Jefferson declar¬ 
ed that an unconstitutional law should be nullified by every department 
within whose sphere of action it came, and when he assumed the presi- 


198 ! 


yency, 'ne annulled as far as was within the reach of the executive, ah the 
proceedings under the sedition law. Do we according to our solemn obli¬ 
gations, support, maintain, and defend the constitution of the United States, 
while we permit a law in violation of it to be enforced within the territory 
ot South Carolina ? The danger which will threaten us if we interpose 
our check has been much spoken of—no one has ever dreamt of the danger 
to which the judges are exposed by using the same power? The militia 
has not been ordered out against them—the sergeant at arms has not seiz¬ 
ed upon chief justice Marshall. These judicial nullifiers seem to have en¬ 
countered no danger in their career of nullification—nor on the other 
hand have the wheels of government been stopped by them. They have 
ne power of arresting every law of Congress as it comes before them, and 
yet the government goes on. The express checks upon legislation provid¬ 
ed by the constitution are those of each house upon the other, and the 
president upon both. The judiciary is a check (but not one expressly 
designated) upon the other three, and the states in their sovereign capa¬ 
city are a check upon the whole. All these checks have at one time or 
other been brought to operate upon the government, and no confusion or 
injury has resulted. 

. /'° ass 5r r * : that a state is bound by an unconstitutional law of Congress, 
]S . con found all ideas of the nature of a constitutional government, and 
to give up all claim of limitation upon power. There can be no gradua¬ 
tion of unconstitutionality—it is not a quality which can be diluted or 
strengthened. A law is either constitutional and obligatory, or unconsti- 
tutionai and not obligatory—in other words it is law, or not law. Now it 
is difficult to assert without being ridiculous, the state right of declaring 
that it will not submit to a law which is not a law. If the two houses o? 
Congress should think proper to dispense with the approbation of the Pre¬ 
sident to their enactments, and promulgate them as laws, it is clear that 
tins state might and would nullify such enactments, and yet they would 
not be more unconstitutional than any other enactment not authorized by 
the constitution. The proposition which is denied is, “that a state has 
the right to arrest an unconstitutional law”—on the other side of course 
the proposition is « that a state has no right to arrest an unconstitutional 
aw/ It is obvious that if a state has no right to arrest such a law, it is 
oound to submit to it. The proposition therefore resolves itself into this, 
that the constitution compels a state to submit to a law which the consti¬ 
tution forbids to be enacted, a soheism which confounds the understand- 
ing. upon the assumption (on which the whole argument proceeds') that 
the law is unconstitutional, it is not only competent to a state, but to eve- 
>j private individual, to deny its validity and resist it. The power enact¬ 
ing such a law ts guilty of usurpation, and the person enforcing it commits 

rilTff SS ' 1 , C , St:Ue " hose "S ilts ale usurped, or the citizen whose 
ii 0 hts are invaded, may constitutionally and legally resist. The onlv 

.pies ,on then is, who shall decide whether the law ^constitutional or not- 
whether its enactment is a usurpation—whether its enforcement is a tress- 
pass. In ordinary cases oi individual contests, the courts are the tribu- 
1 ‘ s a PP 0| nted to settle the matter. Our adversaries insist, that in all 
cases the supreme court is the tribunal to settle disputes between a state 

; fl ,e S ov - n , ment * lle issue uiade up between a sovereign 

1 te a ’"' the £ eneral government, is whether the latter has usurp. 




* / 

f ' L 199 1 

t.ncd tiie power of the former—and it is asserted a that one of the depart¬ 
ments of the general government shall decide—in other words, that 
iiej tiie dispute shall be referred to one of the parties disputant. This 
ini of course precludes the idea of a dispute further than petition and 
m remonstance. It is idle and absurd to refer a matter to arbitration 
■ when the arbitrators are appointed by one of the litigants. But why has 
t the judiciary been selected ? Why not the President r lie is^not of the 
m„ legislative department—lie has no power to make laws—he can only ar- 
. rest them—his veto is a check upon unwise and {unconstitutional legisla¬ 
tion—lie is elected by the people of all of the states, and would therefore 
, seem more properly than any other department of that government, en- 
i dowed with the power of arbitrating between it and the states. Nothing 

I can be urged in favor of the constitutional competency of the judiciary to 
try a question between a state and the general government, that M ill not 
. apply with greater force to the executive. 

Besides all questions as to the extent of the granted' powers, r are 
o;> questions as to the extent of the powers of each department. When 
a state denies the grant of the power, it of course denies that the judicia¬ 
ry has cognizance of it. As far as concerns the matter fin dispute, the 
two governments stand in the attitude of sovereigns. In the construction 
of a treaty between England and the United States, the former would not 
be bound by the decision of the judiciary of the latter. The individuals 
of the two nations, litigating their rights under the treaty might be bound, 

. but surely the government of England would retain and act upon, and cn- 
j : force its own construction. 

It is obvious that this power claimed for the judiciary is not a judicial, 
but a political power. Questions between individuals as to personal rights 
are of a judicial character, and fit to be decided by courts. Questions 
between states are of a political character, and as such, beyond the reach 
of judicial cognizance. Wo betide the state which trusts Its sovereignty 
to special pleas, cr gives up the liberty of its citizens to the keeping of 

• i u< Jg es * 

These positions have at once the authority and the argument of Mr. 
Madison to sustain them. He says “ that there may be instances of usurp-, 
ed power, which the forms of the constitution would never draw within 
the control of the judicial department: secondly, that if the decision of the 
judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the con¬ 
stitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms 
of the constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and 
final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the- 
objection is, that the resolution of the general assembly relates to those 
great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the constitution 
may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights 
of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not 
delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other depart¬ 
ments, but that the judicial department also, may exercise or sanction 
dangerous powers beyond the grant of the constitution ; and consequent¬ 
ly, that the ultimate right of the parties to the constitution, to judge 
whether the compact had been dangerously violated, must extend to vio¬ 
lations by one delegated authority, as well as by‘another; by thejudiciary, 
as well as bv the executive, or the legislature. 


* 








L v ^0 j 


“ However true, therefore, it may be that the judicial department, is, in 
all questions submitted to it by the forms of the constitution, to decide in 
the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation 
to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in re¬ 
lation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which 
the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. 
On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the 
authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the 
others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible 
reach of any rightful remedy, the very constitution, which all were insti¬ 
tuted to preserve/’ 

Whether the laws for the protection of domestic manufactures are a 
violation of the constitution, can hardly be considered a question open for 
discussion in this Legislature. Since 1824, every Legislature has with 
the most perfect unanimity, decided that they arc so—-the whole people of 
the state, without enough dissentients to make a party or even a fac¬ 
tion, have decided in the same wav, and neither Mr. Huger or Mr. Rich¬ 
ardson have denied. The gentleman from Charleston indeed contended, 
that up to a certain point of their operation, these laws might be consid¬ 
ered constitutional, beyond that they were not. Puling their defence up¬ 
on the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he contended that the 
laws did not become unconstitutional until they injured commerce, which 
he conceded had been the case. A law of this anomalous character, os¬ 
cillating between constitutionality and unconstitutionality, and shifting 
From one to the other, as it operates upon a pair of shoes or a yard of broad 



own hazard spill one drop of blood. 

But it is a mistake to suppose that the tariff laws have any thing of this- 
■equivocal character—they are unconstitutional in their whole conception 
and object. The variety of defences to which their advocates resort, prove 
that there is no settled notion of the mode in which they can be proved to be 
constitutional. The laws purport on the face of them to be tax laws—but 
they were not reported to Congress by the committee of ways and means— 
that committee opposed them. The gentleman from Charleston says, they 
are intended to regulate commerce. The committee on commerce did not 
report them, but opposed them. They were reported by the committee on 
manufactures—supported upon the ground that Congress had the right to 
regulate the industry of the country, passed with a view to tiie encourage¬ 
ment of manufactures, and effect this object by the diminution of the reve¬ 


nue and destruction ofc commerce. 

Considering himself, said Mr. Preston, relieved from an elaborate dis¬ 
cussion of tins question by the former proceedings of the Legislature, and 
the admission of both the gentlemen who have opposed the resolutions, he 
would dismiss it with one remark. It is two years since a very vigorous 
and elegant writer under the signature of Brutus, drew an argument 
against the power of Congress to pass laws for the protection of manufac¬ 
tures, from the 2d clause of the I Oth section of the 1st article of the con 
stitution, which Mr. Preston said believed to be unanswerable, as it certain - 
J v is unanswered. That clause purports to be a. restriction uoon the rights 



[ 201 j 

at the states. The restraint is upon the power of the state to lay imposts 
or duties on imports or exports, and it consists in requiring the consent of 
Congress to the imposition of such duty or impost. It also provides that 
the proceeds of such duty shall go into the treasury of the United States.- 
From this clause two inferences are drawn —1st. That the states with the 
consent of Congress may impose duties for the protection of manufactures, 
or any other purpose except that of revenue; and 2dly. that the power be¬ 
ing thus reserved to the state, it does not belong to Congress, which has 
the power of imposing duties only for revenue. 

There has never been any matter of public excitement in this state up¬ 
on which there was so great unanimity as exists in regard to the uncon¬ 
stitutionality of the tariff laws. The most open advocates of unlimited 
submission concede it. No one will deny that their character is less 
equivocal than that of the sedition law, which is the subject of the Virginia 
report and resolutions, and no one will pretend that there is any compari¬ 
son between them in point of oppression and peril. The tariff laws claim 
for Congress the power “ of organizing the labor of the country.” This 
is the power of controling the mind and the muscles ol every citizen—of 
employing his time, his strength, his ability and his capital, according to 
the wisdom, the caprice, or the folly of the government—ot confiscating 
the ships of the merchant for the benefit of the wool grower—of driving the 
farmer from his fields into a manufactory—of starving one class ot society 
that another may become oppulent. 

There is a point of view in which this power may be contemplated, that 
makes it appalling to this Legislature. If Congress can regulate the la¬ 
bour of the country, according to the character of the labour, may it not do 
so according to the character ot the labourer —may it not distinguish be¬ 
tween the labour of a slave and a freeman ! In tact it lias already done 
so. The tarifflaws are and were intended to be a tax upon slave labour 
for the benefit of free labor. Although these laws are general in their 
terms, yet their opperation is partial and sectional. All the manufactories 
are in one section—all the staple products which ultimately bear the 
burthen of the protecting system, are in another. The law as to the gene¬ 
rality ot its terms and the partiality of its operation, is much the same, as 
if Congress intending to support the government by a direct tax should 
levy itupon all slaves within the United States. Tlie tarift laws may not 
be so decisively exclusive, but they approximate it. 1'hey separate the 
southern states from the rest of the union. They mark out the slave 
holder as their victim. The sedition law did not apply to circumstances 
in the ordinary course of life. The tarifflaws operate upon every man 
woman and child in the south. Look around upon the decay and poverty 
which in spite of t£n millions of exports annually, cover the land. This 
immense income is not expended in luxurious living, for every man m the 
state feels himself stra'igthehed in his circumstances. It is not expend¬ 
ed in magnificent buildings, in large investments of capital, in gigantic 
improvements with a view to future profits—where does it go? With 
the cheapest labour, the finest climate, the most fertile lands, and the on¬ 
ly staples, the south is the poorest portion of the United States. Why is 
this ? When did this downward course commence? Land, which in 1824 
was worth ten dollars an acre, is now worth two. I he decline ot prone it} 
has been year bv year and day by day,m proportion to the increase <n the 


< 



tariff. The gentleman from Charleston, Mr. Huger, softened his objection 
to the tariff by stating that it made some articles of consumption cheaper. 
There is no ground for the assertion except a coincidence in point of time. 
If that be sufficient to establish the relation of cause and effect, who can 
calculate the. mischief which the tariff has inflicted upon this state in the 
last seven years. There is no instance in the history of the world - of any 
political community, without some disastrous phenomenon ot nature, or 
overwhelming convulsion of society, being so suddenly, universally, and 
thoroughly hurled from oppulence to poverty. 

The specification which the gentleman (Mr. Huger,) has made of the 
beneficent influence of this abominable system, is illustrative ot its char¬ 
acter. He says that the duty on woollens immediately reduced the 
price of that art icle—but this reduction was the cause of an immediate in¬ 
crease of duty upon the raw article, and brought the distinguished mem¬ 
bers of Massachusetts, Messrs. Everett and XS ebster,into the confederacy 
of pi under. 

The gentleman (Mr. Huger,) regards the power of internal improve¬ 
ment as the most dangerous part of the system. The gentleman, said Mr. 
Preston, cannot object to that usurpation more than he did, and the com¬ 
mittee would have adverted to it in their report, but that they could not, 
since the veto of the President on the Maysville road, venture to 
say that the state doth no longer perceive any ground ot hope ot redress 
from the wisdom and justice of the federal government on this subject. 
The course recommended by the committee, is in despair ot redress— 
which the decided measure of the President removes for the present. Had 
we been cheered by any such measure in regard to the tariff, we might 
with blessings and thanksgivings have entrusted the cause, of our property 
and liberty to the vigor and firmness of the President—but there are no 
hopes from that quarter—none—there are no hopes any where, but in our 
own energy. The hopes which the gentlemen hold out to us are vain and 
treacherous. All which were held out to us two years ago have been fal¬ 
sified by the event. The system will go on. « 

“liusticus expectat dum defluat anmis, 

“ At ille labitur et lubeUir.” 

It will go on widening and deepening, until it is arrested by the 
vigor or exhaustion of the south. The system will embrace us until 
we are devoured by it, or strangle it. Cotton will fall to six and a 
quarter cents a pound—your land will become valueless—your slaves 
will be liberated. These events will occur unless we arrest them. 
The chairman of the committee of manufactures, declared in his place 
in Congress, that no President dared oppose the American system.— 
A resolution of Mr. M‘Duffie intended to produce a discussion of the 
tariff, was contemptuously refused to be taken up. The bill for the 
Buffalo road being rejected, a southern member dared to express his 
joy at the preservation of the constitution, whereupon to chastise his 
insolence and to read a lesson to the south, the bill was called up for recon¬ 
sideration, and now lies upon the speaker’s table, a monument of the 
strength of the American system, and a terror to the south. Is it from 
circumstances like these that gentlemen tell us to hope? Hopeless of re¬ 
dress—bound down by oppression—the constitution having ceased to 
protect us—what are we to do Shall we permit the constitution which 


t 

I * 4 \ 

[ 203 j 

venerate, and liaVe sworn to protect, to be trampled under toot ? Shall 
we with slavish acquiescence permit our property to be seized upon ? 
Shall we sit down in hopeless, helpless submission ? What do gentlemen 
propose? What is their remedy ? When will the time come when they 
will permit us to say, \Ve will be slaves no longer? Do they fix upon a 
time—do they suggest a contingency—or immagine a possibility upon 
which they would be willing to act? While they admit that the con¬ 
stitution does not protect Us, they will not agree that we shall protect 
ourselves. While they admit that we are oppressed, they will not agree 
tha r we shall assert our liberties. While they agree that we are plunder¬ 
ed, they will not consent that we shall arrest the arm of the plunderer. 
Gentlemen will not even consent that the people in convention shall con¬ 
sider their situation. 

The committee it will be perceived, do not propose to the Legislature 
direct and immediate action, blit only a reference of these most im¬ 
portant matters to another tribunal, in regard to whose competency there 
can be no question. Mr. Preston said, that for himself, be believed the 
Legislature fully competent to an act of nullification, but he was willing 
in compliance with those who acted with him and tor the greater solemnity 
and deliberation, to refer the question to a convention. In such a body 
all would have unbounded confidence, and its decision would go forth 
with irresistable authority. 

Bui gentlemen say, if it should decide upon arresting the law, the general 
government would endeavour to enforce it, and thus lay a scene of blood. 
The danger is imaginary. Noth withstanding our experience of the reckless¬ 
ness ol the majority in Congress, they dare not push wrong to that extremity. 
The first tap of a drum upon the borders of “south Carolina would proclaim 
the dissolution of that government—but it utterly disregarding the con¬ 
stitution, and determined to enforce their unhallowed purposes by vio¬ 
lence, why let them come—we will not take council of tear. Ours is the 
cause of liberty and the constitution—if we are crushed, they perish with 
us. But we cannot be crushed-—the holy cause will protect us. I he 
southern states will not see us overrun. Our ancestors encountered 
greater odds. Gallant and brave and wise as they were, it was not to 
them—no, not them—but to their cause that victory came. The sustain¬ 
ing hand of the Almighty supported them, as it will support us, when 
struggle for our liberty. 


tiYDEX,. 


Report of the Select Committee of the Senate, 

Mr. Seabrook’s Speech, 

Appendix to the above, 

J. L. Hunter’s Speech, 

W. J. Grayson’s Speed), 

Resolutions reported by the Committee on Federal Relation*? 
D. E. Huger’s Speech, 

J. P. Richardson’s Speech* 

T. R. English’s Speech, 

J. S. Pressley’s Speech, 

A. P. Butler’s Speech, 

Win. M'Willie’s Speech, 

T. T. Player’s Speech, 

Henry L. Pinckney’s Speech, 

Thos. T. Williams’ jr. Speech, 

B. F. Dunkin’s Speech, 

W. R. Hill’s Speech, 

IP - . C. Preston’s Speech, 


<r> 

O 

4 

21 

24 

26 

31 

32 
48 
59 
64 
71 
89 

111 

122 

145 

164 

179 

191 


rt 


^ERRATA, 


In Thos. T. Williams’s Speech, first page, 9th line, for express read evtresmu 
5th page, 8th line from bottom, for marking, read makimr. 

8th page, 24th line from bottom, for acts, read act. 

18th page, 20th line, expunge are. 

^Qth line, same page, for the, rend their,.. 







CONSOLIDATION 


AX 




IX THE 


UNITED STATES, 


FItOM THE 

CONTENTION OF 1787. 


TO THE 


PRESENT PERIOD. 


SECOXD EDITION 


BY THOMAS COOPER, M. D. 

M 


• The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty 
irT the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be 
kept in mind, and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present.” 


COLUMBIA, S. C. 

PRINTED AT THE ‘‘TIMES AND GAZETTE OFFICL 


1830. 
























t*' ' 

- 

•w ■ , 

. 






T 















. 

“ • ' 








. * 












IM B - , 

% 
































' “ 











PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


The manifest encroachments of the general Government, have kept alive 
the attention of the people to its proceedings from the date of the first edi¬ 
tion of this pamphlet in 1824 to the present time. The claims of the majo¬ 
rity in Congress to unlimited, uncontrollable authority and power over the 
minority* boldly advanced and desperately acted on, have brought this 
Union of independent, sovereign states, nearly to its close. The Govern¬ 
ment of the U. States is now, not a confederated, constitutional, but a con¬ 
solidated Government; a government, wherein a congress majority claims 
to be omnipotent; wherein the constitution is construed as the majority 
chooses to construe it; wherein general welfare is any thing that a ma¬ 
jority chooses to call so; and wherein the minority are openly declared to 
have no rights whatever but what the majority think it prudent to dole out to 
them. That majority now claims to be the sole and exclusive judge of the 
extent of the powers committed to it. I know of no definition of Tyranny, 
but power usurped , unlimited , and uncontrolled. If my reader knows of any 
other definition more accurate, let him apply it to the Government under 

which we live. 

Is this a state of things wherein a Republican may exclaim, “ this is to 
be sure, a subjection to manifest injustice and oppression, but let us wait, 
let us have patience” Wait! Have we not waited these seven long years ? 
Patience! IIow has our patience aided us, except by affording time and 
temptation to our adversaries to heap insult upon injury, and injury upon 
insult? Is it not the very remedy recommended by our oppressors? The 
more patience we have while they rivet the yoke on our necks, the better 
for them. Ought any friend to the American Union, any man who owes 
allegiance to the constitution of the U. States, wait patiently and submit 
quietly to every infraction of the national compact, which an unprincipled 

majority may venture to commit ? I think not! 

This pamphlet has been republished in various parts of the U. States. 
A new edition is called for here; and I have thought fit very briefly to draw 
up an expose of what are now called the South Carolina Doctrines, which 
the very able debate in the senate on Mr. Foot’s resolution respecting 
“the public lands,” last winter (1830) has brought prominently before the 
public. They amount, in fact, to the Virginia construction of the U. S. 
Constitution as her most accredited politicians Jefferson, Madison, Giles, 



4 


Stephen Thompson Mason, Nicholas, &c., propounded it, at the memo- 

rable era from 1797 to 1801; and which, till revived by the spirit of South 
Carolina, was in jeopardy of being 1 overwhelmed by the consolidationists of 
the North. To that debate on the public lands, and the expositions of 
General Mayne on that} occasion in reply to Mr. Webster, we owe much 
that ought never to be forgotten. All the evils of S. Carolina now com¬ 
plained o£ were foreseen and foretold by l 3 atrich Henry on the 4th of 
June, 1/ 88, and on the subsequent days of Conventional debate. 

My own brief statement of the South Carolina Doctrines I have added 
to this edition in an appendix. Tor a more able, as well as a more detailed 
exposition, I refer the reader to the Southern Review, No. XI, for August 
ISoO, page 140.—A review written by one whom S. Carolina may well 
confide in, and whose mode of viewing the subject has my full Concurrence, 

THOMAS COOPEK 

Sivgmt, 1830. 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, 

M hat is meant by Consolidation? What are the distinctive characters 
Qf the rEDEitAL and axti-eedeiial parties? Many persons use the words 
Without any accurate ideas annexed to them. To throw some light on the 
subject, I have drawn up a brief history of the two parties, which I submit 
to the reader’s consideration ; assuring him that, however I differ from the 
politicians who have been, and usually are, called Federalists, I concede the 
.^ame right to them that I take to myself. I firmly believe the majority of 
that party are as intelligent, as honest, and as patriotic as their opponents; 
and that the ultimate good of the country is the object of both. The mode 
of pursuing it makes the difference in opinion, and in conduct. 

The following is the statement of an Anti-Federalist; who believes it to 
be true, and submits it to the consideration of his fellow citizens. He dis- 
approves of the measures, but gives the full credit to the motives of those 

who differ from him. The tribunal of the public is the proper court of 
appeal. 


7 


/ 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 


We, the Representatives of the United States, in gene¬ 
ral Congress assembled, * * T do solemnly publish and de¬ 

clare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be 
free, sovereign, and independent states: and, that as tree and in¬ 
dependent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude 
peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other 
acts and things which independent states may ot right do. 1776. 

This language was adopted by the confederation of 1777, 
which called itself the United States of America, and which 
declares that each state retains its sovereignty; adopting as the 
end and design of their meeting, “the common defence and ge¬ 
neral welfare ” of the states thus united. The proceedings of the 
confederation ol 1777, were not to he valid till they were confirm¬ 
ed by the several legislatures ol all the United States. Ihc pro¬ 
bability that this might not be finally obtained to an instrument 
containing so many provisions, occasioned the subsequent agree¬ 
ment in 1787, that the constitution then adopted should be valid, 
when ratified by nine out ol the thirteen United States. 

In each of these cases, the confederation of 1777, and the con¬ 
vention of 1787, consisted of delegates or representatives, not 
from the people ol the United States, but from the several and 
respective states, in their capacity ol states, free, sovereign and 
independent of each other, as of all the rest of the world. The 
people of the respective states chose that this should be the mode 
of transacting the business of the confederation, and they acceded 
to it when finished. Had they chosen to send representatives in 
their character ot the people ol the U. States, or of INorth Ameii- 
ca, or of the heretofore British Colonies, they might have done so; 
but they directed, or permitted their state representatives to send 
delegates representing each separate, sovereign, and independent 
state ; and to ratify the constitution thus considered, framed, and 
adopted, in their character as representatives of states, and not 
as representatives of the people. This mode of transacting the 
business, throughout the whole period of meeting and debate was, 
and ever since has bees, acceded to by the people. 


The independence anti separate sovereignty oteach state of the 
Union, therefore, never was at any moment conceded, or in an\ 
manner or degree renounced. The confederated states consented 
that this sovereignty should not be exercised on the objects com¬ 
mitted exclusively to the federal government by the constitution 
of 1787. These objects are separately stated, defined and limit¬ 
ed by the constitution : many powers and objects proposed during 
the debates on the constitution, were rejected, and finally, by the 
tenth article of die amendments to the constitution, it is declared, 
that “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the con¬ 
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the 
states respectively, or to the people/’ Demonstrating beyond all 
doubt, that the constitution of the United States was an instru¬ 
ment conveying specific, expressed, and limited powers, and 
those only: that the federal government was a creature of the 
several independent states that consented to it; and that so far 
from being sovereign, independent, and uncontrollable, it was 
originally created, is now kept in force, and maybe altered, limi¬ 
ted, controlled, or annulled, at the will of the several independent 
states or sovereignties, who united to give it existence. 

All this agrees with the plain and obvious meaning of the state 
instructions to the deputies from the twelve states who met in 
Philadelphia to form the constitution of the United States; and 
particularly with the language of South Carolina, whose delegates 
were instructed to meet on that occasion, and “devise such al¬ 
terations as may be thought necessary to render the federal con¬ 
stitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good 
government of the confederated states.” None of the credentials 
contained a word of a national government, or national union. 
This delegation ot State, (not national,) representatives, met and 
was organized at Philadelphia, on the 29th of May, 1787. There 
were at that time three distinct parties in the delegation, as we 
learn from the propositions actually made and debated, in Mr. 
Justice Yates’' account of their proceedings, and the notes taken 
and published by Mr. Luther Martin , of Baltimore, which are the 
only authentic documents of the proceedings of that assembly 
now extant; Major Jackson’s, and Mr. Madison’s notes will pro¬ 
bably be published after their decease. Many accounts and anec¬ 
dotes might be obtained from private recollections, but they do 
not exist to the public. Lloyd’s Congressional Register embra¬ 
ces an early period of congressional debates after the constitution 
was adopted. Indeed, so tearful were the members of that federal 
delegation of their proceedings and designs alarming the peeple, 
who were at first the majority, particularly the Consolidation 
party, that “the members were prohibited even from taking copies 
oi resolutions on which the convention were deliberating, or ex¬ 
tracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving tor, 
and obtaining a vote of permission for that purpose.’”-— Martin's 
Secret Proceedings of the Convention , p. 12. 

The three parties were these: 


J. One whose object was, to abolish and annihilate all state 
governments, and to bring forward one general government over 
this extensive continent, of a monarchial nature, under certain re¬ 
strictions and limitations. The characteristic expression and 
countersign of this party was, “ national.” The leaders of this 
party were Col. Hamilton, whose plan of government to this pur¬ 
pose, was read and proposed by him, in convention, on the 18th 
June. It was too coercive, and did not succeed. Mr. Randolph, 
Mr. Pierce Butler, Mr. Governeur Morris, Mr. Charles Pinckney, 
Mr. Madison, were in favor of establishing a NATIONAL gov¬ 
ernment in lieu of a federal union ; of giving to this government 
supreme power ; and of annulling every state law that interfered 
with the act9 of the supreme and paramount general government; 
not much differing from Col. Hamilton’s proposal, which convert¬ 
ed the several states into provinces. The leading opponents of 
this plan, and the defenders of state rights, were Mr. John Dick¬ 
inson, author of the Farmer’s Letters, and Mr. Patterson. The 
consolidation members were at first, six out of eight. Mr. Dick¬ 
inson’s plan of a federal government was rejected the day after 
Col. Hamilton’s project was read, viz. June 19th. His party was 
characterised by the word, ‘'FEDERAL.” 

By this time eleven states had appeared, and the federal , or 
state party, had increased to five; the consolidation, or national 
party, remaining six. The deputies from New Hampshire came 
in on June 23d. The great question came to issue on June 25th, 
when it was proposed and seconded, to erase the term NATION¬ 
AL, and to substitute the word, UNITED STATES, which 
passed in the affirmative: this ended the struggle between the 
party of Col. Hamilton, of Messrs. Randolph, Butler, Morris, 
Pinckney and Madison—and that of Mr. John Dickinson, and 
his adherents, who were in favor of the preservation of state inde¬ 
pendence, state sovereignty, and state rights, in every case not 
specifically and clearly conceded in the instrument then under 
debate, called the Constitution. 

The second party did not advocate the abolition of state sov¬ 
ereignty, or state rights; but they wished to establish such a sys¬ 
tem as would give their own states some preponderance. This 
party and the first coalesced for the most part. 

The third party consisted of the real friends of a federal, not 
a national consolidated government; to be instituted as the crea¬ 
ture of the several states, acting in their sovereign and indepen¬ 
dent characters; and conceding so much power, and no more, as 
was necessary to promote the general welfare of this union of 
states: expressing, limiting, and defining the specific powers so 
conceded, as cautiously as the occasion seemed to require. 

We have seen that this party, (until about the year 1790, call¬ 
ed the Federal party, succeeded on the 25th of June. The term 
national, the watchword of the party in favor of consolidation, 
vas therefore relinquished, in. all the subsequent proceedings of 


3 


the convention. On the 18th of August it was proposed to em* 
power the legislature of the United States, to grant charters ot 
incorporation in cases where the pubiie good may require them, 
and the authority of a single state may be incompetent; and to 
establish an university. These, with some other similar proposi¬ 
tions, made bv the consolidation party, were referred to a commit¬ 
tee which had been raised on 23d June. The two propositions 
above mentioned, were debated, and finally negatived on the 14th 
September. Affording a lull and decisive proof, that the powers 
conceded to Congress are specific, limited, enumerated powers; 
that do not emanate as of course from any abstract principle of 
what the public good may require; but from the deliberate con¬ 
cessions and absolute will of the sovereign and independent states, 
who then met in convention to define and declare how many, and 
what powers were required by the public good. If Congress’acts 
upon this vague and comprehensive principle of the general wel- 
lare, it assumes a power not delegated ; and it usurps the authority 
of the convention, by whose will it was created. The object of 
the convention was to ascertain what kind and degree of authority 
the public good actually required to be delegated to Congress. 
The members of that convention met for that purpose, and for 
that purpose only; they deliberated, they settled, and enacted 
whatever they thought necessary for that purpose, and they com¬ 
mitted to Congress no part of their own peculiar power. If Con¬ 
gress do exercise the authority of a convention, it is exercised by 
usurpation: and whether it be done by the ingenious subterfuge 
ol implication and construction—by management and contrivance 
in any covert and indirect way—or openly, boldly, and directly, 
it is in either case a fraud on the community. " Congress was 
created and appointed, not as a supreme, but subordinate autho¬ 
rity ; to put in force the powers committed to its charge by the 
constitution—not to delegate at its own will and pleasure new 
powers to itself, unknown to, unthought of, unexpressed, and un¬ 
sanctioned by the framers of that instrument—a body of men cer¬ 
tainly paramount in authority to congress, which owes its powers, 
properties, and existence, to that convention. 

The secrecy enjoined on the members of the convention at the 
early period of their meeting, and when the national or consolida¬ 
tion party, were six to two, was a most suspicious circumstance. 
For who would desire to keep the public in ignorance, but those 
who wish to take some advantage by means of secrecy ? It is 
clear that the propositions made in the early part of that'conven¬ 
tion, were deemed unpopular by the proposers, or their conduct 
would have challenged public inquiry, instead of shrinking from 
it. For all these facts, and the correctness of the preceding state¬ 
ment, I appeal to the minutes of that convention published by 
Judge Yates, the notes taken by Mr. Luther Martin, and the re¬ 
marks founded on them by the late John Taylor, of Carolina, in 
bis new views of the constitution. Cob Hamilton and Mr. Madi- 


9 

son, notwithstanding their dissonance, very honorably-signed the 
constitution. Mr. Randolph took time for the purpose. Congress 
first met in March, 1789. Before this, the series of papers called 
the Federalist was published, written chiefly by Col. Hamilton, 
partly by Mr. Madison, and partly by Mr. John Jay; for the pur¬ 
pose of reconciling thg people to the new constitution which the 
convention had framed in 1787. As we might expect, the party 
distinctions that took place in the convention are rather concealed 
than brought into view in that work. It was a conciliatory pub¬ 
lication, and the motives of the authors did them honor. But it is 
ridiculous to cite them as authority for the real views of the pre¬ 
vailing party; to which Col. Hamilton and Mr. Madison did not at 
that time cordially accede. After this period, the adherents of Col. 
Hamilton and the consolidation party gradually assumed the de¬ 
nomination of federalists, hitherto applied with great propriety to 
their opponents: and the real “federalists,” the supporters of the 
independence of the respective states that form our federal union, 
have been at different times since, branded with the appellation 
of anti-federalists, jacobins, republicans, democrats, and radicals. 
Of the fraternity of politicians thus variously designated by the 
ingenious manceuvering of the federal leaders, who well knew the 
force and value of a nickname, the writer of these pages requests 
to be considered as a member: stating it as an historical fact 
within the knowledge of every man conversant with the history 
and progress of our republican government, that the distinctive 
character of the two great leading parties in the United States 
usually known as Federalists and Democrats, are these. 

The Federalists approving rather of an American Nation, 
than of the United States; of a consolidated and single, than a 
limited and federal government—are desirous of extending the 
power and authority of the executive, legislative and judicial 
branches of that government: of increasing the military and naval 
establishments of the U. States : of augmenting the salaries, the 
rank and popular estimation of all public functionaries: and of 
putting the United States into a situation to take part, it ne¬ 
cessary, in European politics, and of making them a great and 
energetic nation, one and indivisible. Hence they would repress 
the interference, and depress the influence of state authorities, 
and keep state rights and pretensions in subordination to the 
powers of the general government. Hence also, they are advo¬ 
cates for the extension of the general, or what is now called 
federal authority, by any means of implication and construction, 
rather than by an appeal to the states under the prescribed form 
of an amendment of the constitution ; their policy being to keep 
state interference as much as possible out of view, in theoiy and 
in practice. Hence also, the absolute and dangeious contioi 
exercised by the Supreme Court of the United States, over state 
laws, and state decisions. Hence also, the power formeily as¬ 
sumed bv this party when the reins of government were in their 
o 


IU 


hands, ol*limiting the rights of the people, and checking the in 
convenient practice of free discussion by alien and sedition laws. 
Hence also, their dislike, not merely to the horrid practices to 
which the French people were driven or tempted during the 
French Revolution, but also to the principles of that revolution; 
and their predilection for the British government and its forms. 
Hence also, some of the prominent federalists were, and still are, 
admirers of a limited monarchy; and ad\ocates of course, for 
Col. Hamilton’s energetic plan of government; with a President 
and Senate, eligible during good behaviour, an absolute veto over 
all state proceedings, and a President over each state, to be ap¬ 
pointed by the general government. This party, however, neither 
is, or was numerous ; the far greater portion of federalists being 
real friends to a republican form of government, but with a ten¬ 
dency to consolidation .as the leading trait in it: the whole of 
their policy tending to establish one consolidated national govern¬ 
ment, under the control of one system of authority, instead of a 
mere confederation of separate states, delegating expressed and 
limited powers, for expressed and limited purposes.* The origin 
of modern federalism, the distinctive character of the party in its 
commencement and in its progress, was consolidation of the states 
under one government, paramount in all respects; and to this 
object all their proposals lead. For want of an accurate know¬ 
ledge of the history of parties in our Republic, and the leading 
objects of the two great divisions, many of the republicans have 
been tempted to coincide with federal politics, and many of the 
federalists are found in the ranks of their usual opponents. In¬ 
deed party divisions are productive of consequences so unplea¬ 
sant, that good men of all sides are desirous of forgetting and of 
dropping political differences; especially when federalists and 
republicans, the more they see of each other in common society, 
the more they are inclined to respect each other’s motives, and 
to approve of each other’s general conduct; the public good being 
indubitably the object of the great majority of both parties. Still 
it is the duty of a good man, whether of the one party or of the 
other, to adopt those political measures, and to support that class 
of public men, whose general opinions and line of conduct tend 
to advance the public welfare, according to the leading principles 
which he deems best calculated to promote it. These leading 
principles will, on examination, be found to be a single consoli¬ 
dated national government at the expense of state sovereignty; or 
a federal government , with powers strictly limited, under the au¬ 
thority delegated by independent states; and to be altered and 
amended by an appeal to them, and in no other way. 

In examining therefore the character and conduct of public 

* “It is high time,” said Mr. Fenno, (government printer during the 

reign of Mr. J. Adams,) “ that we should get rid of this huge sow with her 
barrow of pigs:”—alluding to the general government and the thirteen 
states. 






n 


tnen, we must apply tins testto their doctrines and practices. So 
*‘ lr as they tend to exaltand increase the character, the powers, and 
die patronage of the general government, at the expense or beyond 
tj'.e control of, and without appealing to the. state governments 
they bear clearly the features and physiognomy of federalism, 
whoever be the proposer, or whatever may be hisprofessiens. 

The Jlnti-Federalist, Republican, Democrat, Radical, (quo- 
cunque nomine gaudes,) is of opinion, that as history clearly 
ahows the tendency of all power to exceed its proper limits, no 
more power should in any case be delegated, than the circum¬ 
stances imperiously require, to produce the good intended. That 
the holders of all power should be responsible for the use of it, to 
those who gave it. That il any excess be excusable on either side, 
it is better to concede rather too little than too much, as it is much 
more easy to add than diminish. They are of opinion, that the 
people and the state governments of this country never meant to 
institute a magnificent, imposing, expensive national government 
with extensive powers, and high prerogatives, calculated to con¬ 
trol or prostrate the quiet, unpretending, cheap and salutary 
governments ol the separate states—but a government with so 
much power and no more, as might be necessary to manage the 
political transactions of common and general interest, in which, 
each and every state had the same common concern; interfering 
with state authorities as little as possible. That the more simple 
the apparatus, the fewer the officers of government, and the less 
they required state lights to be conceded, the better. That if 
power sufficient be not conceded, it ought not to be boldly seized 
by direct usurpation, or clandestinely obtained by taking advan¬ 
tage of verbal ambiguity, by implication and construction but ap¬ 
plied for by submitting the case under the constitutional form of 
an amendment, to the legislatures of the respective states; this 
being the mode of proceeding specially designated by the framers 
of our constitution, to meet the case. They are of opinion, that 
although parsimony be one thing and frugality another, the cheap¬ 
est government is the best government, if it answer the purpose in 
other respects. They particularly object to expensive standing 
armies, and even to a great extent of naval power in time of 
peace/ not that these institutions should be reduced to insignifi¬ 
cance, but kept under cautious control. They hold, that the pub¬ 
lic character and conduct of all public men and public bodies, 
from the President to a Tide Waiter, is fair subject for temperate 
remark; that nothing brings a government so surely into con¬ 
tempt as its dread of discussion and examination; and that in all 

( ) Naval power. The principle of the democratic party, was, not to 
keep up such a military or naval establishment as might tempt us into any 
contest that could be prudently avoided. But. the circumstances of Europe 
have shown, that we cannot avoid a naval establishment on a more extended 
scale, than was contemplated at the commencement of Jefferson’s ad¬ 
ministration. 




such cases the verdict on trial, ought to be with the jury on the 
law and on the fact, uncontrolled by the court. They adhere to 
the principles of public liberty, as set forth in the Declaration of 
Independence, and in the Federal Constitution, particularly 
claiming a free press, untrammelled by any previous restriction, 
and extending to every subject of human investigation, as the 
dearest and most valuable characteristic ol a truly republican 
government. 

For my own part, I go farther, and reviewing the events of 
the last thirty years, 1 am decidedly of opinion, that the republican 
party has forgotten, in great part, the principles that originally 
characterised it; and they have permitted and acquiesced in one 
encroachment after another, till the power of the President ot the 
United States, the power of the Congress of the United States, 
and more than all, the power of the Supreme Court of the United 
States (the most dangerous body in the Union) HAS INCREAS¬ 
ED, IS INCREASING, AND OUGHT TO BE DIMINISHED. 
But on the present occasion, I must abstain from the detailed in¬ 
vestigation that would establish my opinion; an opinion, however, 
which no man, who has observed the progress of our government 
as long and as anxiously as I have done, will be inclinedto deny. 

The former opposers of a federal and advocates of a national 
government, now seized upon the name by which the series of 
essays was designated, containing a defence of the constitution of 
1787, and an exposition of the principles on which it was founded. 
An exposition, not likely to be in all respects accurate and au¬ 
thentic, when made by gentlemen, who had opposed its leading 
featuresand principle; and who were induced to defend it, from 
the truly honorable and disinterested motive of promoting obe¬ 
dience and acquiescence in what had been settled upon the best 
and most deliberate views that could be taken of a very difficult 
and complicated subject. Mr. Madison, I believe, gradually 
changed his views of a national government, and came round to 
the sentiments of the majority of the republican leaders of his 
own state. Colonel Hamilton and Mr. John Jay, continued of 
the “ national party,” who, from 1788 to 1790, gradually assumed 
their modern appellation of FEDERALISTS. In all Col. Hamil¬ 
ton's papers, in the “ Federalist,” the expression national govern¬ 
ment is sedulously preserved; and he expressly declares, in No. 
33, that the principal aim of that series of papers was to inculcate 
the danger which threatens our political welfare from the en¬ 
croachments of state governments. To which he might have 
added the labored justification of the extended powers given to 
the national government, in the formation of treaties, the regula¬ 
tion of commerce, the imposition of taxes, and the maintenance of 
a standing army and navy. To the equality of power among the 
states he was strenuously opposed. 

Mr. Madison, in No’s 45 and 46, is of the same opinion as 
Co). Hamilton as to the power and influence of the state govern- 


1 ? 
i o 


lnents. These were wise and honest men, but I think experience 
has shewn that they were bad prophets. The publication called 
the Federalist, is of a complexion truly federal, in the modern 
sense of that word ; but it did much good at the time, and strongly 
tended to reconcile the people to a constitution which contains, 
after all, but one capital defect, viz: the want of a clause appoint¬ 
ing a periodical revision of it every thirty years. See numbers 
torty-nine and tifty ot the “ Federalist .’ 5 The Pennsylvania 
Council of Censors, had an admirable effect, and I think should 
never have been dropped. 

General Washington, whose services to the United States, 
were probably more than any man had ever rendered to a nation, 
and whose motives and intentions were out of the reach of suspi¬ 
cion, manifestly leaned toward a strong executive. All his offi¬ 
cers of government, Col. Hamilton at their head, were more or less 
of the same opinion, and of the national party. The military 
habits and character of General Washington, had probably no 
small share in giving this bias to his opinions, and the superior 
talents of Col. Hamilton, added weight to the partv. Nor is it 
any wonder that a President should be in favor of a strong execu¬ 
tive, or that persons in power should be inclined to extend their 
authority. The Federalists, as they were now called , became 
therefore, the prevailing, the fashionable party. The funding- 
system, the manufacturing and tariff system, were introduced by 
Col. Hamilton, and with the treaty of commerce with Great Bri¬ 
tain, were carried successfully against the opposition of the re¬ 
publican, democratic, or (now) anti-federal party. Every man 
pretending to good society was expected to be of federal politics, 
and the opposition was considered as chiefly confined to the igno¬ 
rant and turbulent mass of the people. The excise upon whiskey, 
and the termination of that ill-judged insurrection, gave the fede¬ 
ralists (or court party, as they were sometimes called,) a deci¬ 
ded pre-eminence over their opponents; possessing, as the federal¬ 
ists certainly did, in a considerable degree, the countenance and 
confidence of the first man in the nation. General Washington. 
The banking interest, the mercantile importing interest, the mili¬ 
tary, all the dependants on government, and all those who sought 
to be such, were decidedly of the same party; which had un¬ 
doubted control from Virginia northward. Great force also was 
given to anti-republican tendencies, by the excesses consequent on 
the breaking out of the French revolution. These excesses pro¬ 
duced in many, an abhorrence for th q principles of that revolution, 
as if they were different from our own, and as if the excesses of 
the exasperated and misguided mob of the Fauxbourgs, were the 
necessary consequences of an opposition to the execrable tyranny, 
political and clerical, by which that nation had been so long 
degraded and weighed down. The federal party made a skilful 
use of these circumstances; they excited to a very great degree 
a hatred against French principles, and against the nation itself; 


i 1 


and brought about a strong inclination to admire, to praise, and 
to imitate the monarchial forms and principles of the British 
government. The republicans, democrats, or anti-federalist’s 
were now put under the ban of all fashionable society, and every 
where denounced as jacobins. By degrees the principles of our 
own revolution, and our separation from Great Britain, were 
attacked, and every man who did not profess to admire the Brit¬ 
ish constitution was regarded as an enemy to our own existing 
government, and beyond doubt, a disorganize!' and a jacobin, 
The great mass of the people, however, felt that all this was 
wrong: they knew that our own revolution, and the French 
revolution arose from similar causes, and were based on similar 
doctrines. They revolted at the notion of giving preference to 
the monarchial principles and forms of Great Britain, which in 
their operation had forced upon this country the American Revo¬ 
lution; and although the men of superior situation and compa¬ 
rative wealth, soon after the accession of President Adams, began 
to exclaim without ceasing,‘'and abuse without discrimination, all 
revolutionary principles as jacobinical, the people, of America 
thought otherwise, and felt otherwise. But the violence of the 
federal party about this time, aided by the political character and 
complexion of the existing government under General Washing¬ 
ton’s successor, and by their coincidence with British Mercantile 
Agents, Importers, and their numerous connexions, among re¬ 
tailers indebted to them, gave them in the great cities, an un¬ 
doubted predominance; and produced that state of things about 
two years after the retirement of General Washington which was 
not improperly or inappropriately denominated the reign of ter¬ 
ror. The real republicans who are now living, and are old 
enough to remember the state of parties on the retirement of 
General Washington, and the administration of Mr. John Adams, 
know the expression was well applied, and that tins is not a false 
and fanciful, but a fair and faithful representation of the public 
feelings of that day, and I can with perfect safety appeal to them, 
for the honesty and accuracy of this sketch. The conduct of a 
Mr. Fitzhugh, to General Sumter, in the Theatre at Philadelphia, 
in the summer of 1798, may be taken as a sample. 

On the retirement of General Washington, the federal parly- 
put in Mr. John Adams as President. This gentleman* was 
known to be ultra federalist: the advocate of a strong executive, 
in which no other branch should have any participation.*' He had 


* John Langdon, senator from New-IIampshire, and afterwards Gover¬ 
nor of that state, in a letter to Samuel Ring old, Esq. dated October 10th, 
1800, declared, that Mr. John Adams in his presence, expressed a hope or 
expectation to see the day, when Mr. J. Taylor of Caroline, and Mr. Giles, 
(to whom he was then speaking,) would be convinced, that the people of 
America, would not be happy without a hereditary chief magistrate and 
senate, or at least, for life. 

Mr. Taylor, on the trial of Calender, attended in court and was sworn, 
ready to prove this fact; hut Judge Chase would not permit him to give it 
«n testimony. 






written a uoience ol the American Constitution, as the title oi'ltis 

htr !, “I S ’ but r “, ele ? ce of &e British Constitution in reality. 

^ tb, "S. of ch 7 k f and balances, with monarchy as an 
ssential p.ut, m which tne admiration of the writer for the Brit- 

carry 7 mi Tl 1™ Mr, Adams was deemed a fit person to 

de Stood tlY leXV K 0t t lefe(1 l ra! and was generally un- 

lu stood to have been.chosen by the influential men of that party, 

because he was likely to be led by Col. Hamilton and hisadhe- 

ei ts. Col. Hamilton is now dead. The animosities of party as 

° ~ e b J‘ 1 did not, and do not coincide in‘opinion 

^iVatgentlemanon any subject within ray present recollec- 

. h ® 7 as ‘?V iea , rt a inend t0 h5s c °untry, a man of sterling 
a bold and fearless politician, of great ambition, above all 
suspicion of pecuniary bias, and I believe, as honest in his motives 
as he v. as daring in his measures. He deserved to be considered 
as the leader of Ins party ; and it was no arrogance to expect that 
a man so inferior as Mr. Adams in practical information, in re- 
sources, and m energy of character, should be led by him. Of 
Mr. iimothy Pickering, and the other minor officers of govern- 
ment, X know nothing that can be said in commendation: they 
weie entitled to no praise but for zeal in support of their party. 

Mr, j. Adams, however, would not be led. He was irritable, 
concei e , and deficient in practical knowledge. He went with 
Ins party for some time, to the utmost length of their views and 
wishes. He ardently longed for a rupture with France, and he was 
the devoted admirer of every thing British. The alien law, giving 
power to the 1 resident to banish at his pleasure, any foreigner 
wnetiier a.ien friend, or alien enemy, whom he deemed obnoxious : 
and the sedition law, checking all freedom of discussion, and pro- 
tcchng all political delinquency from investigation any where but 
within the walls of congress—forbidding the people to speak or 
to write in disapprobation of the conduct of their rulers—the vio¬ 
lence of the federal Judges in putting that law in force—-the ex¬ 
clusion from office of every description, of all persons whose 
poll tics were not ultra federal, (a measure advocated as equally 
^Mse and necessary by every federal representative in congress, 
in lull debate)—the gross and fulsome adulation that disgraced 
toe addresses to Mr. Adams, and his corresponding replies, 
equally arrogant and bombastic, at length completely disgusted 
” . sober part of the nation, and prepared the way for thaf revo¬ 
lution in public opinion, which ultimately took place. It was 
manliest that all the barriers of republican government were to be 
thrown down—that state rights were to be trampled on—that all 
opposition was to be suppressed by violence—that the federal ju¬ 
diciary was expected to be the mere instruments of governmental 
vengeance—that doubt and hesitation about the measures of <n>v- 
ernment were to be treated in all companies, as disaffection*and 
sedition, and the spirit of the nation to be broken down. Mr, 


Picket! mv as secretary of state, exhibited in bis communications, 
an overbearing insolence ot language, which has no paiallel but 
in the violence of the present secretary of state, in his communi¬ 
cations with Spain.j these gentlemen forgot that all attempts at 
fine writing on grave subjects, and all intemperance of language 
on any subject, are marks ot an interior character, producing no 
effect but ridicule or irritation, and always operate as obstacles to 
conviction. The essential character of dignity of mind, is mild¬ 
ness, clearness, and simplicity, in acting, in speaking, in writing. 
Colonel Hamilton could understand this; but it would be a senti¬ 
ment unintelligible to Mr. John Adams, or Mr. Pickering. 

Fortunately, the necessities of government required an ad¬ 
ditional revenue, and the system of assessed taxes was resorted 
to, with a host of assessors, inspectors, supervisors, receivers, and 
collectors, in the pay and under the controul of government, 
throughout the Union. The people disliked direct taxes of all 
kinds, and on whatever pretence. They preferred that mode ot 
taxation which would put into every man’s power, and remit to 
his own discretion, how much he would pay, by using or abstain¬ 
ing from the article on which an impost was levied. The mur¬ 
murs of the agriculturists therefore, became loud and general. 

About this time a quarrel arose in the adminstration. Mr. 
John Adams had revolted at the guidance and control of Colonel 
Hamilton and Mr. Pickering. Indeed, the latter gentleman was 
Mr. Adams’ equal in no respect but petulence, violence, and 
overbearing—a man of small information and great vanity. I 
refer in proof, to his communications and despatches on French 
a flairs in particular. No wonder Mr. Adams felt disgust at the 
imperious manner of a person so ill qualified to direct. Be the 
causes what they may, the President threw off all deference for 
the opinions of Col. ^Hamilton, Mr. Pickering, and their friends; 
he dismissed Pickering and M‘Henry from office, and determined 
to act for himself. Forsaken by his party; the object of profound 
dislike to the whole body of republicans, he was compelled to 
quit the presidential chair, and retire to a private station. His 
affecting afterward, to be an anti-federalist andjrepublican, and 
his lately published letters to Mr. Cunningham, have not enabled 
him to regain one particle of his lost reputation : nor has Colonel 
Pickering’s attack upon him produced any other effect than to 
show, that however irritable and ill-tempered Mr. Adams may be, 
Col. Pickering is not less so. Whatever bad qualities, politically, 


* This gentleman is said to be a leading member of the Essex Junto, 
a club of ultra-politicians, strongly suspected of being far more devoted to 
the institutions of Great Britain than of their own country. The Essex Junto 
begat the Hartford Convention, which Mr. Otis, of Massachusetts, has lately 
attempted to defend; but he has completely failed in that attempt to wash 
the Blackamoor white. 

r John Quincy Adams, afterwards unfortunately President of U. States, 





i 7 


these gentlemen may respectively possess, it must at least be 
allowed that they merit Dr. S. Johnson’s commendation of being 
“ good haters .” 

During General Washington’s administration three questions 
arose, which called forth and brought into discussion the distinc¬ 
tive doctrine of the federal party, viz. That congress ought to be 
considered as a national legislature, empowered to enact, and 
carry into effect all objects which in the opinion of that bod} r , 
were expedient to the general welfare, and to make the necessary 
appropriations for the purpose. 

The three points to which I allude, were the proposal to 
establish a manufacturing system: the proposal to establish a 
National Bank: and the discussions on the treaty-making power. 

Col. Hamilton, as secretary of state, made a report to con¬ 
gress in favor of the manufacturing system, on the 5th of Decem¬ 
ber, 1791, in which he insists (in conformity to the consolidating 
notions which he never relinquished, even in his defence of our 
present federal constitution) “ that it belongs to the discretion ot 
the national legislature to pronounce upon the subjects which con¬ 
cern the GENERAL WELFARE, and for which under that de¬ 
scription, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. 
And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns 
the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, 
and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, 
as far as regards an appropriation of money.” 

From this passage, it is evident that Mr. John Quincy Adams, 
a thorough-going pupil of the same school, is mistaken in suppo¬ 
sing that he was the original propagator of this doctrine, which 
in the polished language, so peculiarly his own, he insinuates a 
man must be “ ineffably stupid” to deny. 

I should wonder at Col. Hamilton’s venturing this broad 
assertion, when he knew that the convention, of which he was a 
member, formally and by express vote, refused to give to congress 
the power to erect a national university, if I were not well ac¬ 
quainted with the boldness, pertinacity, and decisive character ot 
Col. Hamilton. 

Even in his defence of the present constitution—the present 
federative constitution—in his own publication, the “ Federalist” 
he never desists from the national expressions, which were on 
debate, and by formal vote rejected in the convention, by which 
the constitution was framed. 

This doctrine was adopted to its full extent, by a committee 
of Congress in January, 1797, the first year of Mr. John Adams’ 

administration. , .. 

This creed of the federalists was discussed, when the question 
of the United States’ Bank was first agitated. I have not the de¬ 
bates by me, and we labor under great inconvenience for want ot a 
repository of these most interesting discussions. Col. Hamilton s 
influence prevailed. This was the first great practical inroad on 


IS 


the plain meaning of the constitution:* * Col. Hamilton’s extended 
views of the great effect of this powerful machine in aid of his 
favorite measures, will undoubtedly prove correct. Under such 
managers as Mr. Cheves and Mr. Biddle, we have not yet had 
much to alarm us. But no man can view its progress, and reflect 
on its power, without being satisfied, that like the serpent of 
Aaron’s rod, it is destined to swallow up all the minor establish¬ 
ments of a similar description. The debate on the treatv-making 
power, involved the question ol the ultimate concurrence of the 
bouse of representatives, by means ol their conceding, or refusing 
the lequisite appropriations. The consolidation question had its 
secret influence on this debate, which ended without settling the 
principle. 


c a *^ vi °f importance during the administration 

«ol Mi* Madison, which involved the leading doctrines of the two 
paities was the bank bill, with the internal improvement clause 
m 1817, and the establishment of the present Bank of the United 
states, the year after. To the bank bill of 1817, a clause was 
added (I think by Mr. Calhoun) appropriating the gains of the 
bank to internal improvements. Mr. Madison gave the bill his 
decided negative, on the ground that congress had no power to 
legislate on internal improvements. This was March 3, 1817. 

Tie national bank was carried through afterwards by the great 
talents of Mr. Dallas, one of the ablest men this country has 
seen. Mr. Dallas was led away by his duty as financier, and by 
his long connexion with the great mercantile interests of Phila- 
delphia, with whom a national bank was a favorite measure ; or 


* Chief Justice Marshall, in his life of Washington, vol. 5, p. 295 to 
.99 gives a brief account of tins debate (1791) and delineates the characters 
of the two great parties in the Union substantially as I have done. He has 

ule°d gl h V v e ?h" the n ° te ? t0 ^ at volume » P' 3 » a s bort account of the arguments 
" f,\ hy opponents and supporters of the Bank bill. This gentleman is 

a federalist, with a decided leaning to the national politics of Col. Alex¬ 
ander Hamilton. \ et, I think it is impossible to read the plain, unvarnished 
stated e them^ r the anU-federa! ininonty, on the bank question, as Marshall has 
d j he r ?°i e Shored account of the reasoning of their oppo¬ 
nents, (notes p. 6 and 7.) without giving a preference to the intelhiibfe 

Tie*federal°nnrf ftrst ;. ov . er the . metaphysical, and wire-drawn deductions of 
viie iedeial party on that occasion. 

• A H the difference between Chief Justice Marshall and myself, in our 

the'n S art f of th? ar f- C r e 7 ° r lhe tW0 parties is » that he insinuates a design on 
r-rni^nl antl -federalists, to encroach on the power of the general gov¬ 
ernment, in favor of state authorities. I reply— 1st. Everv nolitical event 
nearing on the question from the year 1790, to the present 'dL has shown 
not only that his representation is not accurate, but that the reverse is- 2dly 

concede H th ? Stat , es ““ US to encro a ch > because (he powl 

crs conceded are fully expressed, and cannot be recalled whfle the nresent 

constitution is in force: 3dljr. The quibbles of implication and constEn 

*neT Si 'h" i nse t0 the usul ;P a ‘‘ on °f power on the part of the general govern- 
S "1 ,,ch ca . n " ever favor of state pretensions ; and hnv/never 

indeed, m any instance, been set up. I conclude, therefore, the dan^e- - 

all we way, and experience shows ft to be so. ’ 7 ‘ 






19 


he never would have been the advocate of that measure hiuiself. 
But the sanction given to this chartered monopoly, by a series ot 
decisions implying its constitutionality, rendered by the supreme 
court, made it extremely difficult lor congress to decide other¬ 
wise. So it is: let in but the giant foot ot usurpation, and the 
whole body of the monster will soon force its way. Good citi¬ 
zens, accustomed to reflect, have long viewed with silent horror 
the portentous progress of the federal judiciary. Ihis body is 
now, as from the beginning it has been, the strong right arm oi 
consolidation. The Judges of that court, are as wise, as learned, 
and as honest, as any other Judges constituting any other court. 
They are men like other men. They are creatures of the execu¬ 
tive : Judges whose motto is, ampliare jurisdictionem, to extend 
their authority; and they have faithfully pursued it. When have 
they ever doubted the constitutionality of an act ol congress. 
And what occasion have they passed over of deciding on the con¬ 
stitutionality of state laws ? They seem to regard themselves as 
an insulated body, far above all state authorities, whose procec - 
ings they have a full right to annul or control. Ihe doctunes o 
court, I regret to say, are fashionable among the members ot the 
bar ; and as I think, have given a federal leaning—a propensity 
to defend the consolidation measures, to very many ot the best 

heads of our country. . 

During the administration of Mr. Monroe, much has passed 

which the republican party would be glad to approve, it they 
could. But the principal feature and that which has; clus-y_elici- 
ted these observations, is the renewal ot the S\ fe rE 
TERNAL IMPROVEMENT. The scruples ol this gentleman 
on the subject of the Cumberland Road, have subsided; and tor 
reasons and for motives of very manifest operation, he has becom l 
a thorough convert to the doctrines ot his ancient enemies. Mi. 
Calhounfl dare say, had little difficulties in overcoming the doubts 
of the President, when he set before his eyes the glittering pios- 
pect of ten millions to be distributed in jobs to fortification-con¬ 
tractors and as much in the construction of roads and canals 
throughout'every part of the union, except in those states winch 
chiefly contribute to supply the funds. Ihese splendid pioject 
of Mr. Calhoun, coincided also with Mr. Monroe s favorite plan 
of fortifications on every part of our coast, requiring ot necessity 
a considerable increase of the standing army to man them. But 
the main objects are the power and patronage—the prodigious in¬ 
fluence that the President for the time being, and the Secretaiy 
of War would acquire, by controlling the expenditure of every 
cent that would otherwise form a surplus revenue. It is hardly 
one time in ten that the ostensible reason of a public proposal is 
the real one. Let any man look at Mr. Calhoun’s report on forti- 
cations in which he proposes to lay out about one mil ion ofdol- 
lii south and nine and a half millions north of the Potomac, and 
one main object of this project, will start up umUsgmsed, and 


- - JV ^ C ‘ U1 ! en Mr * Jeftcrson proposed to abolish 
the internal taxes, it was not on account of the burthen of taxation 

tiom which the people would be thus relieved, but to take away 

nmwT UtlVG I nfl , Ue r.f 0V 7 a host of de pendents, in the pay and 
undei the contio of that department. But Mr. J. was a { radical 

at cp t !? t if tim . e; . , a | 1(1 re P 0lt si }js he is so still. He well knew the 
use that might be made of this executive influence, and he needed 
tnot. Indeed no man ought to be President, who does need 
it, or who wishes to administer the fashionable folly of the dav, 

PATRONISING GOVERNMENT. " 

In January, 1824, Mr. Smith and Mr. Findlay, of the Senate 

roads d and P T te i re . solutions > in substance, that tile committee of 
FresMent canals do report on the expediency of requesting the 
™ employ a part of the engineer corps to ascertain the 

AHeLhanvand°the n s ,DS ‘ i® Scllu ? lk * 11 and tlle Delaware, and the 
annlfcathm nf ft p US< l uehann ?> lr > Pennsylvania. Which on the 

been extended 3 .. PeI “ s J lvania delegation to Mr. Calhoun, has 
Dcen extended to the Susquehanna and the Chesapeake • and to 

rfd V a era i P i a n Ce n S '? the midd ‘ e - north-eastern stZ and in Flo? 
deveioned f ° r P r u T° Se9> not yet, so far as I Know, 

cordially received ? P , 1 ^ atl , on ® tke Pennsylvania delegation was 
self fas been l^lv d lnstantl y granted ; and Mr. Calhounhim- 

mountains no douht f U1VeylnS S °” e ° f the creeks in the Allegany 
cxnUinirt ’ 1'h f SOm ? great nat,onal object hereafter ?o be 
belpectl. ‘ UenC ° ° ftlle P enns y*vania J delegation was to 

throuffh"tl!e°?f?*' assa ™? d . b y congress, to make roads and canals 
usur U it\‘ Pe hv S *t , at thel :. WlU and Pleasure, was regarded as an 
toSt o democratic party, who called on their opponents 

expressly or fmm n S r m the const >tution contained this power 
ry P impli{; t ion 6XpreSS grant "»* derived by necessa- 

This was attempted to be done by some,' 
tions F a°nd am^g the' f^aUufet^' C ° mmerCe " lth f ° rcign 

W hich^tds^^S^. raise anJ SUpP ° rt armleS > t0 

post-road°s! ,erS ' fTOm the P °' Vel ' given t0 establish post-offices and 


t,ie 

bad^io^yerbeuTdev^lopcd^ 

that this able man vTews that svsluS d,SCU f ed » 1 inclined to believe 
and too dangerous in its exerriL t ^ P r , esent » as to ° dubious in its origin, 
day, 1830. Tl^ b * * d °^ d or defended at the present 

it has been made the instrument | l )t * : lte s ) stet u of state-bribery, of which 
tern,” ought to bring it into utter r ^ the acl y° cates ot the “ American Sys- 
most widely• extendfd plan of liighwfyTobbery eve?toted™”’ * 58 ** 








21 


lliese pretences were so discordant, so manifestly strained, 
and forced into the service, and one might say, without much dan¬ 
ger of departing from truth, so absurd, that the speeches of Mr. 
Holmes, of Maine, and Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, in the senate, 
were triumphant in point of argument. 

On the 10th of February, the bill to obtain the necessary plans 
and estimates in relation to roads and canals, were carried in the 
House of Representatives, 115 to 86—16 members absent. Seven 
out of 24, from New-York, voted against it: South-Carolina, vo¬ 
ted four and four, one member absent. Among the minor objec¬ 
tions to this bill, were, 1st. That it contemplated no equitable 
principle of expending the public money, neither in any ratio of 
taxation, or representation. 2d. That the states which had 
already meritoriously expended their domestic revenues in pub¬ 
lic improvements, like New-York and South-Carolina, were for 
that very reason to be left out, and their taxes appropriated to 
supply and make good the parsimonious or negligent deficiencies 
of the states who had done nothing for themselves. 

The pretences of deriving this assumed authority on which 
the bill in question, was based from the military clause, or the 
regulating commerce clause, on the post-road clause, were seen to 
be not merely weak, but farcical. Which of them, for instance, 
will apply to Mr. Calhoun’s frolic to Deep-Creek, on the top of 
the Allegany P Who can read the account of his journey for this 
purpose with any gravity ? In the House of Representatives a 
broader position was taken ; viz. That Congress had a right to 
pass any measure conducive to the general welfare. This is the 
true and. only ground which furnishes any thing like a defence of 
the bill in question, or that can be argued with due seriousness. 

Mr. M’Duffie’s speech on this occasion, in favor of the bill, 
comprises every thing that can be urged in its defence, and 
was, beyond all doubt, the most able and eloquent support of that 
measure which had been heard in either house fallacious as it was. 

We now come to the broad and ancient line of discrimination 
between the federal and the republican parties; between the ad¬ 
vocates of a consolidated national government, and the defenders 
of state rights and limited powers. From the very opening of the 
debates in the convention of 1787, through every period of political 
discussion, the present day, the position taken by the friends of 
the internal improvement bill, in the last congress, has been the 
distinctive, the characteristic, the exclusively appropriate doc¬ 
trine of the consolidating or federal party. For if congress may 
adopt any measure, or pass any act, which, to a majority of that 
body may seem conducive to the general welfare, what can they 
not'do? Who is to limit them, or where is the limitation ? All 
the barriers of the constitution are thrown down ; all state rights 
are prostrated, as of minor consideration ; all the powers which 
the convention refused to grant, are claimed over again as of right; 
all the conclusions that are deducible from the constitution, being 


i *' 


*■* 


a compact for mutual benefit between confederated states, conce¬ 
ding so much power and no more as was necessary to the pur¬ 
pose of the confederation, are atone breath annulled and annihi¬ 
lated. 

This was the position taken by Col. Alexander Hamilton, in 
the debates in convention: this was the position taken by him 
in his report on manufactures : this was the position assumed by 
the ultra-federal committee of the House of Representatives in 
1797; no other position is necessary to convert thess United States 
into one national government, under one hereditary chief, and one 
hereditary senate, as Mr. John Adams urged on "Messrs. Taylor 
and Giles. No not one. The warmest friend of the Holy Alliance, 
would not desire safer or broader ground to stand upon. If con¬ 
gress may enact whatever it may deem expedient for the general 
welfare, its power is unlimited, absolute and despotic. 

Mr. John Q. Adams, Mr. J. C. Calhoun, and his partizans, 
assumed this ground. The former gentleman has boasted of be¬ 
ing the first person to urge it, but he was mistaken. The honor 
belongs to Col. Alexander Hamilton. The following letter, how¬ 
ever, of Mr. J. Q. Adams, will serve as a proof of his zeal in the 
cause, and furnish some elegancies of expression, and samples of 
moderation in style, that may be inserted among the beauties of 
his diplomatic correspondence. 

The opinion of John Quincy Adams on the subject of Internal 

Improvements . 

“ The question of the power of congress to authorize the mak¬ 
ing of internal improvements, is, in other words, a question whe¬ 
ther the people of this Union, in forming their common social 
compact, as avowedly for the purpose of promoting their general 
welfare, have performed their work in a manner so ineffably stupid, 
as to deny themselves the means of bettering their own condition. 

I have too much respect for the intellect of my country to believe 
it. The first object of human association is the improvement of 
the condition of the associated. Roads and canals are among 
the most essential means of improving the condition of nations; 
and a people, which should deliberately, by the organization of its 
authorized power, deprive itself of the faculty of multiplying its 
own blessings, would be as wise as a creator who should under¬ 
take to constitute a human being without a heart .”—[Ohio Na¬ 
tional ('risis. 

The follow ing are the remarks of the Richmond Enquirer on 
the above quotation: 

“ These doctrines may be calculated for the meridian of Ohio; 
but surely not of Virginia. 

“We shall not examine the opinion of Mr. Adams as to roads 
and canals only—but we would throw out a few suggestions as to 
the main principles itself. Can Mr. Adams be a friend to a limit¬ 
ed construction, when he goes thus for the whole? Can one, who 


takes such broad ground, be considered as of the old republican 
school of’98 and‘99 ? Whatever promotes ‘ their general wel¬ 
fare* —whatever betters or is supposed to be the ‘means of bet¬ 
tering their condition’—whatever * improves the condition’ of the 
nation, is, according to him, within the purview of the powers of 
the general government. Where, then, is the limitation P—When 
can we say ‘thus far and no further?’ What cannot the federal 
government do ? What power is denied to them, which they 
may suppose calculated to better the condition of the nation ? 

“ Is it not enough to say, as the old republicans said, is this par¬ 
ticular power given—or if not given, is it the means necessary 
and proper, for carrying any particular given power into execu¬ 
tion ?—But we are now to arrive at the true reading of the con¬ 
stitution by a much shorter process. We are only to ask, does a 
particular power better the condition of the nation ? If so, it fol¬ 
lows of course—and the man is * ineffably stupid ,’ who will not 
immediately admit it. If Mr. A. is to be believed, we need no 
longer trouble ourselves with any enquiry as to the terms on which 
these separate states have associated together—for the very ob¬ 
ject of the association cancels all limitations, and endows the 
government with undefined and undefinable powers. If the Uni¬ 
ted States can do any thing to better their condition, whether the 
states have conceded the power or not, there was no necessity for 
a ‘particular enumeration of powers’ in the constitution. They 
may establish roads and canals ad libitum —universities, colleges 
and schools—in fact, where is the limitation ? 

« When the Virginia legislature adopted Madison’s report in 
1800, they were * ineffably stupid.’ This ‘ ineffably stupid’ report 
demonstrated, that the phrase ‘general welfare’ was to be found 
in the ‘articles of confederation ;’ and that the phrase in this very 
limited instrument was surely not understood * to be either a gen¬ 
eral grant of power, or to authorize the requisition or application 
of money by the old congress to the common defence and general 
welfare, except in the cases afterwards enumerated which explain¬ 
ed and limited their meaning. 

“How ‘ ineffably stupid’was the Federalist (1st vol.) when it 
asked, ‘what would have been thought of that assembly (the Fed¬ 
eral Convention) if attaching themselves to these general expres¬ 
sions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and 
limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of pro¬ 
viding for the common defence and general welfare ?’ 

« How ‘ineffably stupid’ was James Madison, when on the 3d 
of March, 1817, he ‘ was constrained by the insuperable difficulty 
(he felt) in reconciling the (internal improvement) bill to the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, though to negative that bill, he 
admits his capacity to ‘better the condition’ of the people? 

“ If these doctrines be so ‘ ineffably stupid,’ we are content to 
abide by them. But at least let us hear no more of John Q. Adams’ 
being of the Virginia school of politicians. Can the constitution 


be sale in his hands ? It would be a nose of wax—moved this 
way or that, as expediency might point out!” 

Mr. M’Duffie is willing to qualify this unlimited claim of 
power, by confining it to those objects which can be effected by 
an appropriation of money, concerning which, the constitution, 
according to him, makes no limitation whatever on the discretion¬ 
ary power of congress. The position he assumes, therefore, is, 
that congress may adopt any measure whatever, that they may 
deem necessary to the “ common defence and general welfare,” 
it money be necessary to carry it into effect, and appropriate any 
sum of money whatever for the purpose. 

He justifies this by three cases of legislation that he thinks 
can be justified on no other principle. Congress appropriated a 
sum of money for the relief of the French emigrants from St. Do¬ 
mingo, who were compelled to take refuge here in a very destitute 
condition. And they appropriated another sum, for the relief of 
the sufferers by an earthqurke at the Caraccas. I reply, that 
congress did not stop to enquire whether they had an indisputable 
light to indulge this honorable feeling, and perform these urgent 
acts of charity at an expense too insignificant to be an object of 
debate. Neither will I. J 

But Mr. Jefferson, by treaty, purchased Louisiana, for “ the 
common defence and general welfare,” and congress appropriated 
the money. Well: could they avoid it? Is it not the received 
opinion that the house of representatives are bound to make the 
appropriations necessary to carry info effect a treaty agreed to by 
the executive and ratified by the senate ? I express no opinion of 
my own upon this question, but this, the common opinion, has 
always been acted upon. At any rate, even those who deny it 
to be the duty of the house, agree that there is no objection to their 
doing so, if they see fit. this case, then, is involved essentially 
and forms a part of one of the powers expressly vested in, anil 
delegated to congress by the constitution. The abstract princi¬ 
ple of its being a duty, or not a duty, was discussed, but not set¬ 
tled m the debates on Jay’s Treaty, but the right of appro¬ 
priating in such a case, was never for a moment denied then 
or at any time since. Mr. M’Duffie, therefore, must look out 

for some other precedent equally in point, to support the stand he 
has taken. 

SC ? no c ^' erence between Mr. J. Q. Adams and Mr. 
M Duffie. * or does not absolute power reside in the purse of the 
nation, and with him who has absolute control over the contents? 

Ay m ^ T h , St v WOllld n0t cmljrace Mr. Adams’ proposition, with 
Mr. MDuflie’s limitation? If you are left at full libertv to do 
n hatever can be done with money, what is it you cannot do ? If 
‘ . onroe an d Mr. Calhoun, can place at their own disposal ten 
in ill ions to be expended in jobs for fortifications, and as much in 
jobs for post roads, and military roads, and commercial roads, and 
post canals, and military canals, and commercial canals, in every 


corner oi the union, where influence is to be acquired, 1 believe 
the less we say about the “public welfare/’ the better. 

1 am by no means an enemy to internal improvements, but 
much otherwise, if they are executed upon some plan ot equality 
among the respective states. But no system of expenditure is 
proposed, which shall contain the principles of equality and equi¬ 
ty ; and a more wanton dissipation of the money of the United 
States, I can hardly suggest, than the projected improvements in 
the state of Pennsylvania. Every exercise of usurped power, is 
tyranny. Every assumption of power by congress, not dearly 
and indubitably conceded, is a fraud on the several states. Do 
you want power to make internal improvements? Take the con¬ 
stitutional mode of obtaining it, and apply for an amendment to 
your constitution. Why do you refuse so to do? Because you 
are in doubt whether you can fairly and honestly convince the 
several states of the necessity for it: because you distrust your 
own cause, and dare not confide in your own arguments. 

But such is now the case, and the leading characteristic doc¬ 
trine of of ultra-federalism and consolidation, is now the fashion¬ 
able doctrine in congress: and one half, at least, of the South 
Carolina representation are the advocates for it! "Very many ol 
our young politicians seem inclined to favor tbe pretensions of 
power and patronage, and to enlist under the banners ol ultra¬ 
federalism. 

Fellow-citizens, it is in vain to talk of an amalgamation of par¬ 
ties, while the dividing line of 1787, has continued to be the 
dividing line from thence forward, to 1825. Is South Carolina 
destined to be a federal state ? Do you mean to join the ranks of 
that party? If vou do, so be it. Things must take their course, 
and the friends of state rights must be content to remain in their 
minority. If not, the politics of Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun and 
General Jackson, are not the politics of tins state; for these gen¬ 
tlemen supported to the utmost of their power, a principle and a 
measure, which, from the very moment of pa try difference, has de¬ 
cidedly characterized the federal party.-—Consolidation is the 
motto of their flag. 

This accusation will involve some of the most honorable, some 
of the most able, some of the most zealous and useful sons ol 
South Carolina. Men, who with industry, perseverance, know¬ 
ledge and ability, worthy of all praise, defended the rights of the 
South, against the ignorant and selfish speculations of the tariff- 
men. But it is remarkable, that neither Mr. Webster, Mr. Poin¬ 
sett, or Mr. M’Duffle, advocated the rights of the South on prin¬ 
ciple. Maj. Hamilton, of Charleston/ in his very able view of that 

* This pamphlet was first printed early in the winter of 1824- Major 
James Hamilton, having seen the dangerous tendency of the Consolidation 
doctrines, lias published with a frankness that does him honor, his change of 
opinion. The masterly defence of Carolina doctrines, in the 11th No. of the 
Southern Review (Debate on Foot’s Resolution) is by Major Hamilton. , 




:20 

question, went into the right claimed by congress to legislate the 
money of the planter, into the coffer of the manufacturer. Yet, I 
see not how that gentleman could, on principle, take the ground 
he so ably supported: for if congress have a right to pass any act 
which they may deem conducive to the general welfare, why may 
they not pass an act to protect domestic and prohibit foreign man¬ 
ufactures r Why may they not legislate on the Missouri ques¬ 
tion? In half a dozen years Arkansas will apply to be a state: 
suppose Mr. John Q. Adams, elevated to the presidency, with his 
known views on that subject, will it not encourage the enemies of 
the South to bring it up again ? Surely it will. 

Fellow-citizens,it is in vain to say the monster party may be 
destroyed: people who honestly, and with views and intentions 
equally honest, differ on principle, must ever remain two parties. 
Ihere need be no animosity, because going both of us to the same 
point C. you prefer the road A. and I think better of the road B. 
Still the difference of opinion must and will remain ; nor do I be¬ 
lieve the country would gain much by amalgamation. It is well 
for both of us to be watched. 

r l he question here discussed is a very leading and important 
one. I he tendency to consolidating opinions among all our 
young politicians, is manifest: the road to hereditary office is 
breaking upon the view, and monarchy is dimly seen at the end 
of the vista. 

I close these remarks; submitting them, under the sanction 
of the following opinions on the subject, by James Madison, our 
former president. 

Proceedings in the Virginia Assembly,passed in December, 1798, 
with the review of the committee 'thereon, presented Tuesday. 
January 7, 1800/ J 

The other questions presenting themselves, are— 1. Whether 
indications have appeared of a design to expound certain °eneral 
phrases copied from the “articles of confederation,” so as to des- 
ti oy the effect of the particular enumeration explaining and limit¬ 
ing their meaning. 2. Whether this exposition would by decrees 
consolidate the states into one sovereignty. 3. \\ hether the 
tendency and lesult of this consolidation would be to transform 
the republican system of the United States into a monarchy. 

1. The general phrases here meant must he those “ of provi¬ 
ding for the common defence and general welfare. 

In the “ articles of confederation,” the phrases are used as 
follows, in article VIII,—“All charges of war and all other ex¬ 
penses that shall be incurred for the common defence and general 
welfare, and allowed by the United States in congress assembled, 
shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be sup¬ 
plied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all land 

Avithin each state, granted to or surveyed for any person, as such 

*• ' • 1 1 " " 1 1 . - . - -- - - - 

* See also to the same purpose, Mr. Madison’s paper in the Federails t 
on the public welfare, No. 23, No. 41; and on construction, No. 33. 





land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estima¬ 
ted, according to such mode as the United States in congress 
assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint,” 

In the existing constitution, they make the following part of 
section 8. “ The congress shall have power, to lay and collect 
taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for 
the common defence and general welfare of the United States.” 

This similarity in the use of these phrases in the two great 
federal charters might well be considered, as rendering their 
meaning less liable to be misconstrued in the latter ; because it 
will scarcely be said, that in the former they were ever understood 
to be either a general grant or power, or to authorize the requisi¬ 
tion or application of money by the old congress to the common 
defence and general welfare, except in the cases afterwards enu¬ 
merated, which explained and limited their meaning; and if such 
was the limited meaning attached to these phrases in the very 
instrument revised and remodelled by the present constitution, it 
can never be supposed that when copied into this constitution, a 
different meaning ought to be attached to them. 

That notwithstanding this remarkable security against mis¬ 
construction, a design has been indicated to expound these phrases 
in the constitution so as to destroy the effect of the particular 
enumeration of powers by which it explains and limits them, must 
have fallen under the observation of those who have attended to 
the course of public transactions. Not to multiply proofs on this 
subject, it will suffice to refer, to the debates in the federal legis¬ 
lature, in which arguments have on different occasions been drawn, 
with apparent effect, from these phrases in their indefinite meaning. 

To these indications might be added, without looking farther, 
the official report on manufactures by the late Secretary of the 
Treasury, made on the 5th of December, 1791 ; and the report ot 
a committee of congress in January, 1797, on the promotion ot 
agriculture. In the first of these, it is expressly contended to be¬ 
long “to the discretion of the national legislature to pronounce 
upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, 
under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and 
proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that what¬ 
ever concerns the general interests of learning, ol agriculture, oi 
manufactures , and of commerce , are within the sphere of the na¬ 
tional councils, as far as regards an application of money” The 
latter report assumes the same latitude of power in the national 
councils, and applies it to the encouragement of agriculture, by 
means of a society to be established at the seat of government.— 
Although neither of these reports may have received the sanction 
of a law carrying it into effect, yet, on the other hand, the extra¬ 
ordinary doctrine contained in both, has passed without the slight¬ 
est positive mark oi disapprobation Iroiu the authority to which 
it was addressed. (Congress.) 

Now, whether the phrases in question be construed to aut.iop 
i/.e every measure relating to the common defence and genera* 


28 

welfare, as contended by some f or every measure only in which 
there might be an application of money, as suggested by the cau¬ 
tion of others,! the effect must substantially be the same same, in 
destroying the import and force of the particular enumeration of 
powers, which follow these general phrases in the constitution.— 
For it is evident that there is not a single power whatever, which 
may not have some reference to the common defence, or the gene¬ 
ral welfare ; nor a power of any magnitude which in its exercise 
does not involve or admit an application of money. The govern¬ 
ment, therefore, which possesses power in either one or other of 
these extents, is a government without the limitations formed by 
a particular enumeration of powers; and consequently the mean¬ 
ing and effect of this particular enumeration, is destroyed by the 
exposition given to these general phrases. 

This conclusion will not be effected by an attempt to qualify 
the power over the “general welfare,” by referring it to cases 
where the general welfare is beyond the reach of separate provis¬ 
ions by the individual states ; and leaving to these their jurisdic¬ 
tions in cases, to which their separate provisions may be compe¬ 
tent. hor as the authority of the individual states must in all 
cases be incompetent to general regulations operating through the 
whole, the authority of the United States would be extended to 
every object relating to the general welfare, which might by any 
possibility be provided for by the general authority. This quali¬ 
fying construction, therefore, would have little, if any tendency, 
to circumscribe the power claimed under the latitude of the terms 
“ general welfare.” 

I he true and lair construction of this expression, both in the 
original and existing federal compacts, appears to the committee 
too obvious to be mistaken. In both, the congress is authorized 

to provide money fortne common defence and general welfare ._ 

In both, is subjoined to this authority, an enumeration of the cas¬ 
es, to which their powers shall extend. Money cannot be applied 
to the general welfare , otherwise than by an application of it to 
some particular measure conducive to the general welfare. When¬ 
ever, theiefore, money has been raised by the general authority, 
and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises, whe¬ 
ther the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities 
vested in congress. If it be, flic money requisite for it may be 
applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. This 
fair and obvious interpretation coincides with, and is enforced by, 
the clause in the constitution which declares that “no money 
shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appro¬ 
priations by law.” An appropriation of money to the general 
welfare, would be deemed rather a mockery than an observance of 
this constitutional injunction. 

\ hetliei die exposition ot the general phrases hero com- 


* -John Quincy Adams’ position, f Mr. M’Duffie's position 







29 


butted, would not by degrees, consolidate the states into one 
sovereignty, is a question concerning which, the committee can 
perceive little room for difference of opinion. To consolidate the 
states into one sovereignty, nothing more can be wanted, than to 
supercede their respective sovereignties in the cases reserved to 
them, by extending the sovereignty of the United States to all 
cases of the “ general welfare,” that is to say, to all cases whatever. 

3. That the obvious tendency and inevitable result of a con¬ 
solidation of the states into one sovereignty, would be to transform 
the republican system of the United States into a monarchy, is a 
point which seems to have been sufficiently decided by the gene¬ 
ral sentiment of America. In almost every instance ot discussion* 
relating to the consolidation in question, its certain tendency" to 
pave the way to monarchy, seems not to have been contested.-—- 
The prospect of such a consolidation has formed the only topic 
of controversy. It would be unnecessary, therefore, tor the com¬ 
mittee to dwell long on the reasons which support the position oi 
the General Assembly. It may not be improper, however, to rey 
mark two consequences evidently flowing from an extension ol 
the federal powers to every subject falling within the idea ot the 
“ general welfare.” 

One consequence must be, to enlarge the sphere of discreti on 
allotted to the executive magistrate. Even within the legislative 
limits properly defined by the constitution, the difficulty of ac¬ 
commodating legal regulations to a country so great in extent, and 
so various in its circumstances, has been much felt, and has led to 
occasional investments of power in the executive, which involve 
perhaps as large a portion of discretion, as can be deemed consis¬ 
tent with the nature of the executive trust. In proportion as the 
objects of legislative care might be multiplied, would the time 
allowed for each be diminished, and the difficulty oi providing 
uniform and particular regulations for all, be increased. Erom 
these sources would necessarily ensue a greater latitude to the 
agency of that department which is always in existence, and 
which could best mould regulations of a general nature, so as to 
suit them to the diversity of particular situations. And it is in 
this latitude, as a supplement to the deficiency of the laws, that 
the degree of prerogative materially consists. 

The other consequence would be, that of an excessive aug¬ 
mentation of the offices, honors and emoluments depending on 
the executive will. Add to the present legitimate stock, all those 
of every description which a consolidation oi the states would 
take from them, and turn over to the federal government, and the 
patronage of the executive would necessarily be as much swelled 
in this case, as its prerogative would be in the other. 

This disproportionate increase of prerogative and patronage 
must, evidently, either enable chief magistrate of the union, by 
quiet means, to secure bis re-election from time to time, and final¬ 
ly, to regulate the succession as he might please: or, hv giving so 


i 


transcendent an importance to the office, would render the eiec- 
Isons to it so violent and corrupt, that the public voice itself might 
call tor an hereditary, in place oi an elective succession. Which 
ever of these events might follow, the transformation of the repub¬ 
lican system ol the United States into a monarchy, anticipated by 
the General Assembly lrom a consolidation of the states into one 
sovereignty, would be equally accomplished; and whether it 
would he into a mixt or an absolute monarchy, might depend on 
too many contingencies to admit of any certain foresight. So far 
Mr. Madison. 

Upon tiie whole, it appears, that the Convention of 17ST, who 
1 ramed our present constitution, were ol the politics now sneered 
at as radical that our present constitution is radical in all its 
principles, that our oldest and best tried politicians were, and are 
radicals in their politics; attempting so far as they could foresee, 
to lay the axe to the root ot all useless expense, and of all con¬ 
structive usurpation: averse to all measures that might tempt us 
to engage in national quarrels, which could be prudently and hon¬ 
orably avoided. They were no friends to magnificent, expensive 
and dazzling forms and principles ot government; to governments 
aiming at extensive patronage; to needless grants ot power ; or of 
money, which is sjnonimous with power; being well persuaded 
ihat the diffidence between a good and bad government is, that the 
last is expensive beyond necessity, while frugality without parsi¬ 
mony, is the characteristic of the former. The principle is uni¬ 
versally true, that the cheaper we can purchase what we really 
want, and the less we expend on what we do not want, the greater 
surplus remains at our disposal; whether we apply it to a"form of 
government, or a yard of muslin. 

Such are the political tenets ot the men who are stigmatized 
as “penny wise and pound foolish 5 ’-, as Anti-Federalists, Re¬ 

publicans, Democrats, Levellers, Disorganizers, Jacobins, and 
RADICALS; names attempted at various periods of political 
warfare to be affixed to the leaders of that party, which after all 
seems to m'e to be the PARTY OF THE PEOPLE. Whether 
they be so or not, let the people judge. 



SOUTH CAROLINA DOCTRINES. 


On the construction of the constitution of the u. s. on 
tiie fowers of the federal government, ANI) 

THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE STATES. 


The following tenets that now seem to characterize the 
politics of South Carolina, are not new. To investigate their 
history and authority, and the grounds and reasons on which they 
are based, it will be expedient for those who desire accuiate ex¬ 
amination and are willing to take the very useful labour required 
for that purpose, to read carefully the following books. 

The Constitution of the U. States, finally drawn up on the 17th Sep- 

The Journals, acts and proceedings of the Federal Convention, publish¬ 
ed bv order of the President of the U. States. Boston, 1819. 

Secret debates of the Federal Convention, from the notes ol Mr. Aates 

and Luther Martin. Albany, 1821. „ ■ . , 

Proceedings of the Virginia Assembly, Jan. 7, loOO ; drawn up b} Mil 

1 ^The Resolutions of the Assembly of Kentucky, 1799, drawn up by Mr. 

Jdferson^ebate on Mr Toot’s Resolution, relating to the Public Land, 1830. 

Ch,r The «iy»bie Review of that debate, in the 11th No of the Southern 
Review for August, 1830, p. 140. The best summary of the doctrines in 

question, jet wou ] ( j Sll p e rcede the necessity of any other, if it 

were not for the extreme importance of pressing on the people the doc¬ 
trines in question, in every form and shape, and continually, till they are 
lenerahy j K and fully discussed. If the confederated Republic of 
Americans to he saved from despotism, it can only be by the prevalence of 
Hie South Carolina doctrines. They cut up by the roots the prevailing 
tenets* on which the friends of Consolidation found the American Ststem 
of general welfare, the omnipotence of a legislative majority, Internal Im- 

,'ovem i s and a protecting Tariff; those hideous offsprings of public 
provements, anu p & They f a n when their foundation is subverted. 

I°enter therefore, into no details on these branches from the trunk of Despo¬ 
tism. I proceed, then, at once to a summary of the political tenets of South 

C ' a, 'lst“'\Vhen a Convention took place in 1787, to form the present union 
called tile United States, and to frame the Constitution as we have it, tha 

convention '^‘^pe^pklTofthe people of North America: or of the 
■ncnnle of the heretofore British Colonies: or of the people of the confedc- 
?ate P d States of N o ;th America : or of the people in their capacity as people, 
under any form of expression or designation whatever 





i he Declaration o» Independence was issued by the Jiejjiesentatives of 
the United Stales of America, in Congress assembled. 

The credentials of’the members of the Convention, declare them to be 
Deputies or Delegates (not of or from the People, but) from the respective 
States , represented in that Convention : which therefore was a convention 
< f the several independent, sovereign States of North America, in their 
character of independent Sovereign States. Such was the form of proceed¬ 
ing to which the People acceded, and by which they chose to be bound. 

° The union or confederation which then took place, was an union not of 
the whole people but of the separate States, having separate interests as 
well as a common interest; and accordingly the name adopted was, The Uni¬ 
ted States 

During the whole of the sitting of the Convention, the votes were taken 
not by counting the individual members, but by Slates. Hence, as every 
thing was settled by the votes of the majority of States present, that majority 
might very often be as it was, a minority of the people. Thus, suppose 
Massachusetts, New-York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to vote one 
way (1787) and New-Hamphire, Connecticut, New-Jersey, Delaware, North 
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia the other way—it is obvious that this 
majority of States would contain a very manifest minority in population. 
Put the decision of the Convention would conform to the majority of 
States. 

These United States, area Federal Union : of what? of the mass of the 
people of one large community ? Can the term “federal” be thus applied ? 
Is it not a grammatical absurdity, unless applied to the confederation of dis¬ 
tinct independent States? Was such a thing ever known as a confederation 
of the people of one and the same community? 

The original articles of Confederation, 9th July, 1778, are entitled 
“articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of 
New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c.” It has well been asked by Mr. Uag'uet, 
whether the term “ a more perfect Union” employed ir. the present consti¬ 
tution of the U. States, could refer to any thing but this confederation and 
perpetual union of States? 

The government of the United States, then, is a government framed by 
and for the common benefit of several distinct and independent States, that 
agreed to unite togther for that purpose. A truth of no slight importance on 
the present occasion. 

2d. When the Convention thus met and until they broke up and sepa¬ 
rated, having concluded the purposes of their convening, there was no gov¬ 
ernment of the U. States, no Constitution, no President of the Union, no 
Congress, no Federal judiciary. All these are of subsequent institution; 
the creatures of that Convention ; subordinate to the power that g'ave them 
existence ; the authority they possess, is delegated by and derived from the 
several confederated, independent and sovereign states, then convened; an 
authority delegated for express and limited purposes, and for no other. 

3d. The General Government of the United States, now consisting of 
the Legislative, Executive and Judicial authorities, is the Agent of the con¬ 
federated or United States ; an agency, constituted for limited purposes, and 
with limited powers. The power that authorizes and legalises the doings of 
this Agency, is the Constitution of the United States. This written docu¬ 
ment, prescribes what acts the government aforesaid may and shall do ; and 
how, and by what means the general welfare shall be consulted and pursued: 
and it is therein declared, that the powers and authorities not clearly and 
expressly granted by the Constitution, do not fall within the jurisdiction of 
this agency, but are reserved and belong to the several independent states, 
to be by them exercised, and by them onl} r . (12th amendment.) 

4th. Hence the Government of the United States is not based on a 
compact to which that Government was a party—iqjs not a power pre-emi¬ 
nent and superior, but an agency only, subordinate to the several indepen- 


o3 


tlependent sovereignties, that by common consent gave it existence tor com- 
mon purposes. Those sovereignties in convention, may alter, : modify, abo¬ 
lish, and reinstate this agency, when and how it may at any time hereafter 
suit their interest so to do. The several States remain as before ; indepen¬ 
dent of each other and of the United States. They are not merged and 
absorbed in this latter. From what has been said it follows, that the Fedci- 
ral Government, is not the government of a Nation one and indivisible—or 
of the majority of the people of such a nation—that it possesses no control 
over the several States of the Union beyond what the Constitution has given 
it for common purposes—but is strictly and truly an agency invested with 
limited powers, which it cannot honestly exceed. Those powers are to be 
found in the Constitution and no where else : and if not plainly and clearly 
found there, are not to be usurped by means., of ingenious but disputable 
construction. 

This view of the subject is an essential feature in the Carolina Doctrines. 
Their opponents say, that the Government and the Constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States is the Government and Constitution of the whole people of the U. 
S* That the Representation in Congress, is the representation of the whole 
people of the U. S. That as the majority of the people of the U. S.,like 
the majority in every other political community, constitute the supreme 
power ; the majority in Congress as the representative of the majority of the 
whole people, also possess supreme power, and are entitled to bind the mi¬ 
nority upon all questions, and in all cases whatever. That the good of the 
majority being the great end and aim of all government, is so of this : that 



though at the expense —- „ „ 

stance necessarily inherent in every government. Hence they conclude 
in fact, and act upon that conclusion, that in every question presented to 
the consideration of Congress, the majority in the Legislature is omnipotent 
and uncontrolled. 

It becomes of great consequence therefore to ascertain ihc fact, Is-tins 
a government made by and for the whole people of N. America, eo nomine, 
or by and for the several independent and sovereign states ? The Supreme 
Court of the United States, Mr. Daniel Webster, and all the friends and ah 
the advocates of “the American System” adopt the opinions just stated, 
v i 7 . that the Federal Government emanates from the People alone in their 
nopular character and capacity; that the majority of their representatives 



the minority 
muni- 


government is not a limited but an unlimited government; the mi 
have no rights ; and the States are converted into petty, subordinate 
cipalities, adapted to local jurisdictions and to them only. # „ 

The fruits and effects of this despotic theory are seen, in tne Tariff or 
protection ; in the contemplated annihilation of all foreign commerce and 
interchange ; in that system of unexampled waste, of enormous and most 
wanton extravagance, called the system of Internal Improvements; in tnc 
bribery and corruption of State after State, by means of it; and in tne peL- 
manent systematic disregard of all Constitutional limitation, so as to convert 
the American Union of‘states, into one great, all-absorbing, uncontrolled 
consolidated Despotism. Of this intention no man who has duly considered 



•’illy 

'•ce of a State Veto, 


is enhallv certain. 


1 hut a 3 a general rule, the majority must decide against the lmnofitv, 
is undoubted, unless there be a special contract which takes the particular 
case out ot the general rule. Thfc Constitution is such : by which the power 
of the majority is limited in its exercise to the objects therein pointed out, 
and does not extend to the reserved rights of which the Constitution guaran¬ 
tees to the separate states the exclusive exercise. 

5th. The Constitution being the written declaration of the purposes 
for which this agency was instituted, it is to be construed like all other- 
powers given by a principal to an agent. The powers granted cannot be 
honestly exercised, but with a view to the Trusts for which they were granted- 
M hatever is done by the General Government ‘within the authority delegat¬ 
ed, is binding on all the States and the people of States: what is not done 
under and by virtue of, and within the plain and obvious meaning of the au¬ 
thority contained in the Constitution, is not binding : it is nuil and void, 
like every other unauthorized act of every other agent, in every known or 
supposable case. 1 his is the universal Law of Powers and Agencies in 
every known civilized community: it is the doctrine of the Civil Law of 
Come, °i every nation on the continent of Europe, of Great Britain particu- 
iarly ; of the United States; and of every state in the Union. It is so, be¬ 
cause it is the dictate of common sense. An agent who exceeds his powers 
and instructions, is not in this respect an agent at all. Neither his principal 
nor any other person is bound by such acts, which may be legally denied 
and resisted by any one. 

, Gth. Hence also it follows, that the majority in the National Legislature 
nave no right, power, or control over the minority, but what is given by 
the Constitution of the United States, and subject to the limitations therein 
contained. 

1 hat no law passed by the National Legislature has any binding force, 
Unless the right ot passing it be clearly and undoubtedly found in the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States ; for Congress has no authority whatever 
out ot that Constitution. That no law, in any wise affecting the reserved 
rights of the States, can be binding’ on any State, or any citizen of any state. 
Such a law is, ipso lacto, null and void, Congress being expressly prohibited 
trom passing it. 12th Amendment. That when Congress passes a Law, 
the burthen of proof that it is a law clearly authorized by the Constitution, 
restsj.ipon those who claim the rigid, and exercise the power of passing it. 

/ th. If an unconstitutional law be passed, it may be declared to be un¬ 
constitutional, or otherwise, by the federal judiciary, in the cases expressly 
committed to that tribunal by the third article of the Constitution, and no 
other. Any act of Congress conferring powers on the judiciary, not autho- 
nzed by that article, is itself unconstitutional and void. The constitution 
itself lias traced the outlines of judicial power. 

Ihe powers so delegated to the federal judiciary, do not include a ques¬ 
tion between ihe government of the United States and any State , growing out 
oj the reserved rights of the States. Had such a power been intended to be 
included, it is of too great importance not to have been given by clear and 
express words, leaving no doubt of that intention on the mind. No such 
,’unsdiction is to be found in the words of the article referred to: it therefore 
. d ° e s not belong to the federal judiciary. The jealousy of the people, lest 
the federal judiciary should interfere improperly with state rights, gave birtli 
<.0 the 11th amendment of the Constitution. Moreover, it could never have 
oeen intended to have been given, from the nature of the case. Canaprin- 
mpal authorize an agent to dispute or decide on a question whether his prin¬ 
cipal be such or not r Can a sovereign State commit to a delegated autho¬ 
rity, the right oi deciding whether it be a sovereign State or not ? The 
same principle is recognized throughout municipal law: Can a tenant dis- 
putc his landlord’s title ? The reserved rights of the Slates are placed, by 
the 12th amendment, and by express words impossible to be misunderstood, 
oiu of the jurisdiction of the general government and every part and portion 
.-t. They can never, therefore/form a question directly, or indirectly, to 


ne agitated before the federal judiciary, which lias uo more cognizance of 

them than of the rights of the King of France. 

By the law of nations, no independent, sovereign State—no nation can 
alienate its sovereignty, it is an act suicidal in its nature—no nation, no State, 
therefore, can delegate to any other power orauthority the right of determin¬ 
ing whether it shall continue to be an independent sovereign State or not. 
Force may decide this question, but no other power can. Hence, none of 
our S tate sovereignties conk! have delegated the right of deciding such a 
question to any tribunal whatever. The delegation of such an authority, 
had it been possible, would have been void by the Law of Nations—Vattei 
B. 1, ch. 2, c. 5-65, 69. Further, the Supreme Court of the United States 
is not an independent, impartial tribunal. The judges are the creatures of 
the executive—they have a bias in favor of extending the powers of the 
general government—they have repeatedly exhibited this bias in their de¬ 
cisions. The judges may be, and at this time are, in part, persons commit¬ 
ted in their opinions by previous conduct and declarations in favor of the 
government side of the questions now agitated ; and they may be such at any 
time in future. To refer a disputed question to a tribunal, filled with the 
friends and agents of one of the parties to the dispute, is not a reasonable 
course of proceeding. Nor are judges whose lives are spent in the distin¬ 
guishing and deciding on legal subtleties, proper persons in general to decide 
great and important questions of constitutional law, and the political rights 
of sovereign States. 

For these reasons, questions involving State sovereignties and State 
rights, have not been, in point of fact, and ought not to be, in point of right 
and expediency, committed to a partial tribunal, erected for municipal ques¬ 
tions like the judiciary of the United States, filled with judges of executive 
nomination. 

8th. If, therefore, such a question should arise, each State must, on its 
own responsibility, decide for itself: it has no tribunal to appeal to—none 
that it ought to appeal to. It is an international dispute, which each party 
at his own risk, must settle according to his own rules and notions of right 
and wrong, except indeed in two cases, for which the constitution has made 
provision. 

Those cases are, where Congress is in doubt whether a power claimed, 
be constitutional or not; and where a power not granted, is desired. In 
those'cases, a convention of States can be called by Congress, and the pow¬ 
ers doubted or denied may be given, if two thirds of the States consent; 
and this is the fair and regular course of proceeding. 

9th. If Congress neglect or refuse to put in force this salutary provision 
of the constitution, but proceed in a steady career of usurpation, passing 
laws which the constitution does not justify, and closing their ears to the 
memorials, remonstrances, and appeals of the minority—what is that minority, 
or any independent State, party to the federative compact, to do in such’a 
contingency ? For every right there must be a remedy. What is the rem¬ 
edy in this case. 

10th. It is the duty of such a minority, to bring the question before 
Congress and the public; to memorialize, remonstrate, and appeal to the good 
sense and good feelings of their fellow-citizens in Congress, again and again 
and again. To exercise all reasonable patience ; but no more. There must 
be at length an end to remonstrance: no injured person is bound to remon¬ 
strate till his injuries are beyond redress, or be driven to abject submission, 
or wait till oppression gains too much strength to be successfully resisted.— 
The next step will be, as such laws are in fact null and void and without 
any binding force, to declare that they are so; and take measures to protect 
the citizens from their unjust operation. This is the appropriate remedy as 
proposed by Messrs. Jefferson and Madison, in the Virginia and Kentucky 
resolutions. It is the remedy adopted by every Court of Judicature against 
ff’ery unconstitutional law. Every citizen, in everv State of the Union bv 


5,lje * a s t ms country, ai1 ^ laws of Great Britain, is authorized to op¬ 
pose, c\en by force, should it be necessary, every exercise against hint of 
undelegated authority. To declare an unconstitutional law, null and void, 
and destitute of ah obligatory authority, is merely to declare a matter ot* 
iact, that no lawyer, no sound politician, ever doubted for a moment. In 
the convention of Massachusetts, held for the adoption of the federal consti¬ 
tution, tile late Chief Justice Parsons, of that State, was a member from 
Aewburyport, and he said, in relation to Congressional usurpations, “ Sir, 
toe people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation 
without being driven to an appeal to arms. .dn act of usurpation is not obli¬ 
gato) y is not Iqio, and any man may be justified in his resistance to it. I.et 
him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet his own fel¬ 
low-citizens only can convict him: they are his jury, and if they pronounce 
him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him : and innocent 
tfiey^ certainly iviLfnd him , if the supposed luxe be resisted, xvas an act of usur¬ 
pation. So much for the opinion the most able Judge Massachusetts ever 
had. 

. Should the general government attempt to enforce obedience to these 
unjust laws, instead of calling a convention of the States to settle the dispu¬ 
ted right; and by. a vote of two thirds, to-confer on Congress the power 
wished for and claimed—the States thus oppressed, ought peaceably to 
withdraw irom an Union, conducted on principles of consolidation, and arbi¬ 
trary usurpation. “ Disunion is a bad thing, says Mr. Jefferson ; but conso¬ 
lidation is worse.” 

. ^ Without tais "Veto conceded to a State, or States in the minority, 

tins reccra.i government.will inevitably and permanently degenerate into 
vdiat,.at Ihis.present writing, it actually is—a government by a Congress 
majority, claiming and exercising unlimited, undelegated, usurped power 
wherein the minority are deliberately voted down, and allowed no rights 
whatever theoretically or practically ; where their appeals to the history of 
the proceedings in the convention, to the understood terms of the national 
compact, and the provisions of the constitution, are laughed to scorn; and 
die yoke riveted on their necks, is declared to be tiie fixed policy of the 
American nation. 

12th On the other hand, if this Veto, consisting in the right of declaring 
a law manifestly unconstitutional to be as it manifestly is, null and % oid, and of 
protecting the citizens from its operation, be conceded to the several States, 
<u assumed as it ought to be when a fit occasion occurs, by each and every 
State, on its own responsibility, without any formal concession—then have 
we a full, perfect, and permanent check against Congressional usurpation: 
tnen nave we a full, perfect, and permanent safeguard against consolidation: 
then have we a full, perfect, and efficient mode of compelling Congress to 
appeal to tae people when they wish to exercise dubious power, and obtain 


I ^ V. liiai vw ii Will till* JJLUjJiL auu 1 

and be asked, not taken, by the agent from his principal. 

tilth this check of an interposed Veto, no government on earth, will be 
equally lvee as our own : without it, l see nothing but consolidation and usur¬ 
pation, as our future destiny. This Veto is nothing new. It was recom¬ 
mended by Jefferson in the Kentucky resolutions of 1772. It was advocated 
in Mr. Madison's Virginia proceedings of Jan. 1800. It was acted on ex¬ 
pressly by Mr. Jefferson, in the case of Callender. It was adopted and 
acteu upon by the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut against the Em- 
! al p° m i£>09. It lias been authorized by the opinions of many well¬ 
-informed constitutional jurists in the Congress of 1829—1830. It was 
adopted and successfully acted upon, without any fear of Disunion by Georgia 
in case of the removal of the Indians. And it has been acted upon uniformly 
by the Congress majority from 1824 to 1830, who have completely and forci¬ 
bly nullified the Constitution of the United States. 

But should these principles of Government become impressed on the 


People of the United states, and they are induced to act upon them at the 

Ballot Box, the sectional Legislation which has shaken this Union to i!s very 
foundation, will be put an end to ; and the maxims of honesty that guide us 
in private life, will be adopted as the rules of public action; and fraud will 
not be considered as having changed its name or its nature because it in¬ 
creases in magnitude, and acts upon an extended scale. 

Should these principles of government become impressed on the people 
of the U. States, and they are induced to enforee them at the Ballot Box¬ 
car children about half a century hence may experience the practical con, 
sequences I am about to mention, as matters of political speculation, and 
which I can indulge only as a distant prospect. In that course of years it 
may come to pass, 

That the Government of the U. States, shall be required to legislate as 
little as possible : and never but where the propriety of the enactment is too 
clear to be disputed, and never but for the common good. Of all govern¬ 
mental evils, one of the greatest is governing too much. We are dreadfully' 
annoyed with it, throughout the whole Union as well as at Washington. 

That the Government of the United States shall be confined as much 
as possible to external relations. The States do npt want the general Gov¬ 
ernment to do for them, what the States can do for themselves. 

That the Government of the U. States, shall be prohibited from granting 
charters to banks, or erecting any other corporation, with exclusive privi¬ 
leges. Who gave that or any other government among us power to confer 
exclusive privileges? In this republic ? In this country of equal rights, equal 
laws, equal benefits, and equal burthens ? In particular, we shall see no 
more of that monstrous and most dangerous usurpation, the Bank of the U. 
States. An institution, whatever conveniences it may offer, well calculated 
to act as an engine of wide-spread bribery to the friends of administration 
and of governmental encroachments, and of punishment to the friends of the 
people; spreading through every business and profession, and every ramifi¬ 
cation of society. An engine of controul over the honest exercise of pub¬ 
lic opinion, that a very few years will render absolutely'irresistible. Either 
the Liberties of the people, or the privileges of that Bank must g-o down • 
one or the other. 

That the Government ofihe United States shall have the courage and 
the honesty to throw' aside the present fraudulent system of direct taxation, 
calculated to pick the pockets of the people adroitly', without their being 
able to discover the fraud. When Congress shall become honest, it will put 
down this system of executive patronage, and popular deception ; and recur 
at once to a system of direct taxation which the people can feel, and calcu¬ 
late, and understand. 

That the enormous patronage of the executive shall be reduced, and 
greatly too. A patronage that the most honest President, will be very 
much and very often tempted to employ for the sole purpose of exercising 
executive influence, or defending executive measures. The power of the 
President in the country, “has increased, is increasing, and ought to be 
diminished.” 

When this period of half a century arrives we may possibly see by an 
amendment to the Constitution, a Council of Censors, (3 or 5) appointed 
every dozen years by the people, for the sole and exclusive purpose of ex¬ 
amining and revising the acts of Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, during the last period, and reporting to the 
ensuing Congress all such as the Council of Censors may consider as un¬ 
constitutional. 

When all this comes to pass, then may a Representative in Congress 
enter that assembly' an honest man, without the strong chances that at pre¬ 
sent prevail, of his coming out changed or contaminated. Then will Congress 
Ilall no longer be a market, where votes and slates “ are bought and sold 
as openly and notoriously as stalls for cuttle at a fair.” 

The* prospect is a gratifying one : when will it be a reality ? 

THOMAS COOPER. TO. D. 

Sept. 1830. 


f °fi™ A Wo/refi m Uae 

Pa^e 37 o 7 I, , Jan • 1799 » 

Nation” read “ • "r fr ° m 

read ln direct taxation.” 


irom bottom. 
for « direct 























V * o 

/ 


°0 . ■ 

A 

/r */SSN * ^ v, o> * 

>? <?■ » moK(U*- * 

* \ x 

\V * v. 1 8 -, 

<0 V 




-> o o^ ® ^ 

a ^ * W n r\ \ « 

^ > K* ? • 

- ^ % *v; f, * v • o° c o y * *' 

/^V ” v 
‘ ^ > 


■y v 

O o x 


^ Kf> $ 

* V- 

1 

^ ^ ^ c ** * 

%> s^T^.o 0 

«.' *°, "> 8M O^ s'* * 9 ?, % ' *v 

o/. , aV v j&t41m>, / '' C * v 

‘ % ** • ^ip,' '<§> A* * 
vV ^ * \ :<'s 3 . $ 1 

* 'V V V, V S&W 1 * v^ ^f. 

\ ^ * ( - V' A -qV - ^ 

'**' >A ■■ ■;,: * s: • • ‘ >° A -. V' •'•' >\.. 

/7V?\ *> ^ <x V.V. " \ <t *■ *?■ 

. ^ : \° ^ ^ 


* ^ ^ .r **x - s" 

-/ *m. j / , #0 ^ a 

'• c-^ V ^ 0 / >- oV* 

r (5 <3> <• A J <.. 

-/ . v:: A"c ♦ 

* r.'- 'v.-*-: h <y V w 

A> cP 

> 'V ^ 



* A % '. 

■* <xY * 




oo ■ 

' -^a i>-^ . - <**. ^ V ^ 

/y y ^> . A* * 5 2> -4 . , 

**' a' •>'■, %, '"•*■* ^ 

4 * +'«»%. %°o o°- - 

<s 

" •>* V 

o o x 


o O' 

*j vj " \v ^ ^ i 

' '^,. *& 0 f* , ^ ^ -p- 

^ ».', .*' ,o° °°,'♦rT’* y % 

> r> s s * • > ^ 5 N 0 \V ^ 

. V Mt&mJ** C y> V X 



r - * ✓ 
o . <y . 













A 




- 'A. ° 


N (, 


V ' » * S . \ lift 0 

* <£> jA , <■' B * 1 o 

f 'p .A A /v ^. -f %> 

* aS/T//P-> * 


Wj j 

~ } CLV 


«<■ •% '•’#».', '“°* ■ 







x ° o x 



y WAW > \v yf. * 

c* y * o; a+ /_ 

°* * 3.-H 0 * A V %y . * a . T * 

\> *A*°/- 

<* Ar, - ^ ^ 

A V '^. O V/\A A J* <V> ^ ° ^ '-^n 

X ct- * *S & -i Q. v V>- Ip ^ 

' * * ><v *^js :° * x v.*-•.\ ' * ** v\* 

O U ", __ 


~o <y , n ^ \V 

1> N 0 . Y 

ff C* V v ^ s * 0 /• 


% 0 o 

°' 4 V-, d v* , vV 

av % A * 

' .o A 

* ‘V d>. y v 05 



iW^ ^ - vj * 

^ o H r, >■ ^ 

> A ^ + e £A///#SF .> 

* «.• ^ ^ ' X O.0 

' * 9 I \ * <9 

V' > ,0 V A V/* "o 

?• o 5t * _ **6 N ' "P ^ 

° •>* o''' 1 * <, <<• 

,.9/n, o v> 7 tp. 



3 N 0 • \ 

/y C‘ V '?- 

^ y P i . .- r „ ^ -i 

*. * 4014 '.'% 

> > vJW : % % '. 'rfSp 0 4 V 

•4^, » ts y -l flV y o 

^ 0 , x * f/ ■ 

k 1 0 

■1 o 
■? 


4'0* 4 


, ^ y 0 * x ^ 

1 % A ( -0 v t 0 ' '* 4> •->, 

% * ., c %. A 


S.. i o 


- ^ 

r ^ ^ ' s s v A v 0 ^ ^ ^ ^0' 


^0 


^ 0 <?5 ^ 

^ v^ **. + ■ 

* CL *■ 

O nr 
Si 0 lY 

V ^ ^ 0 / 

I , V. ' . 4 ’ ^O ,i> <\ 

A % x » ^ 0 A c Av ,V 
: V « 4O%A'0 c ^ s 

AO', ^ ^ \. o / tC 




V 4^ v 

^TTT'' x x r< ^ *<o\ \ *' ^ ». <4 ♦ 

• ' 11 A^ X A 1 8 * O. .0' c 0 N G % <S> 

A A ^.yy79^ 1 C- 3 rY\. . *P . 

■ 00 ' **■ Y 


■ti -W ^ ^ c 

4 %./* 


. /V 







































LI 

E F ARY O r CO S GF ESS 

0 ( 

)33 239 063 6 





































































